Open main menu


National Portrait Gallery, London collectionEdit

Hey all. I recently acquired about 3000 high-resolution high-quality photographs of portraits and other works from the National Portrait Gallery, London, which you can see at Category:National Portrait Gallery, London. I have little interest in the Featured Picture process, but I thought some of these might be prime candidates if anyone's interested in nominating them. Below are a few of the ones I'm fond of. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

King JohnEdit

Is it worth nominating File:Shakespeare's King John at Drury Lane Theatre.jpg? There's so much dislike of black and white engravings here that I'm kind of inclined to skip it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It's huge; not everyone want to download 51MB to review it. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ironically, the PNG is smaller. I might try reuploading it at 95-99% quality and see if it makes a visible difference. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Creation of templates to refer to technical flawsEdit

The Problem

Reviewers sometimes give cursory dismissal of FPCs in a blunt, opaque format like this:

For a submitter who is unfamiliar with our jargon, this type of comment is unhelpful and discouraging.

Current Templates

There are a handful of templates such as   Overprocessed and   Oversaturated which refer to technical flaws in a sort of jocular manner, but these are not suited for normal in-line usage, and they do not link to information about the technical flaw they refer to.

Proposed Solution

I think FPC (and QIC) would benefit from the production of templates which would produce the full term in an in-line, wiki-linked fashion. For example, {{CA}} might expand to this:

chromatic aberration

For the above case, the comment would now look like this:

i.e., *{{Oppose}} {{CA}} --~~~~

This would make it easy to type in our normal pithy fashion without sacrificing the ability of new submitters to understand what we type.

Comments? --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


I made the {{CA}} template, as used below:

"There is a lot of chromatic aberration on the left side of the column."
"There is a lot of {{CA}} on the left side of the column."

-- Notyourbroom (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this is a really good idea and will greatly benefit newbie nominators --Muhammad (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New Polling TemplatesEdit

I have made the following:


  Request As a courtesy to the nominator, please explain why you have voted your opposition to the promotion of this image. Note that the voting instructions request that you provide an explanation for votes of opposition. Thank you.

--Notyourbroom (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added another: {{AddGeolocation}}, which has the abbreviated version {{Geo}}. Here is an example usage:

*{{Geo}} --~~~~

  •   Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment These are great, but a   Question how does one go about making a template, and getting it to sub in? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I basically followed these steps:

  1. To to a page like this one to see the source code of a working template
  2. Select all of the text and "copy"
  3. Go to my address bar and type in a new template name (i.e., change "AddGeolocation" to something else)
  4. Go to the new address, which creates the blank template with the name I picked
  5. Paste in the source code from the other template
  6. Modify it to do whatever I want

Hope that helps. --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we now have {{Confused}}. Hopefully.   Confused: Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I added {{NoAnonymous}}, which does this :

  Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you.

--ianaré (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for portrait format vs. landscape format equationEdit

Problem: pictures in portrait format are displayed 3 times larger in preview on the candidate list than standard landscape format pictures. Panoramic pictures do extend the scope and therefore are displayed as small strips. In my opinion this isn't well balanced - in further consequence portrait format pictures gain leverage. This proposal would balance all picture formats a bit more by setting the height to |x220px| (with an x) for landscape and the width to |220px| for portait format. The technical execution would simply demand to change the indication of size into an indication of height. For portrait the user must customize <!-- change to |220px| for portrait if relevant --> Best regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea! --Specious (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded, I didn't even know this way to call images, it's very cool and might encourage nominators to have a look at the real picture instead of voting basing on a small thumbnail. ;) Diti the penguin 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Loch Dunvegan fog01 2007-08-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 17:54:49

File:School of jacjs.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 16:06:02
school of jacks.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info This is an underwater image taken in the wild.
  •   Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Berg der Seligpreisungen BW 2.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 13:17:36

  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Mount of beatitudes and Sea of Galilee -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
End of demonstration


  •   Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fully agree. I've done it quite often with mine and other's FP candidates -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support good idea --Simonizer (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Very smart idea. Especially just for panoramic photos. Albertus teolog (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, but should be done automatically via a script --ianaré (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think it's a good idea -- Pro2 (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, why not? --Aqwis (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support and as ianaré, via script. Panoramics, however will benefit in size. The total square cm for example, or size in pixels can be the same for portrait and landscape, for panoramics, due to their nature, a double value can be assigned in thumbs, otherwise, but not the same height in pixels as landscape pictures. People should at least view the image before voting anyway. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Unconditional support, great idea. --Ahnode (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support true...a good idea --AngMoKio (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I noticed that problem pretty often when using an image for an article. Of course that's just the same for the FPC --Mr.checker (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a different way to go about doing this, with some neat coding. See for example w:Portal:Norway/Selected panorama/2. Cirt (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --3268zauber (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Sounds reasonable and well-thought-out. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I usually manually change the panos to adjust. Would be good to have it done --Muhammad (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great idea, Richard. Thank you for taking your time to work on this!--Mbz1 (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a good idea. I fully agree! -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 07:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support usefull and nice --Sfu (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support good proposition. Yann (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good idea! I also agree to Tomascastelazo, if a script could scale the preview image to a size (width times height = total number of pixels) equal for all images, independent of the aspect ratio, that would probably also a good way to implement it.--Chmehl (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support a nice idea!--miya (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Great idea, Richard! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Leafnode 14:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Diti the penguin 18:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, its a good idea --Böhringer (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent proposition! -- MJJR (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support It is an obvious move forward for displaying "standard" pictures having aspect ratios in the range of 3:4 to 9:16. But I don't know whether or not I have seen the right-hand edge of the Loch panorama example you have used. It goes to the absolute edge of the viewing window, and may perhaps extend beyond it. As Tomas said, you cannot vote one the basis of FPC thumbnail anyway, and the original file gives a chance to assess the image properly. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment The |x220px| format was too large for the panorama, I've reduced it to 190px so it would fit without a left-right scrollbar - MPF (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely yes --High Contrast (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - A great idea - Peripitus (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposal accepted. Let's change the template. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion/suggestions/comments :Edit

Yes, it seems a good proposition. Yann (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really good idea, I hope it can be done by a script. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its a good idea --Böhringer (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense, though I do wonder if it could be done automatically somehow, without needing parameters set. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a specialst for this question, who wrote the scripts for COM:VIC ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Slaunger, I think. I did some of the initial work, but he did the really clever stuff. By the way, note that for some of the really wide panoramas, we're going to need to throw it into a scrollbar.
Note that if it can't be done through standard means, it'll probably be possible to Javascript it fairly easily - it should just be a matter of slightly manipulating the text that gets loaded when you go to set up a nomination. People with Javascript set up would have to do it themselves. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea about coding but I informed Slaunger on his talk page. I think it should be makeable, somehow :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
In COM:VIC images are reviewed in a certain review size (not full size as on FPC) where the area has to be fixed to ascertain that the detail levels seen are the same independent of the aspect ratio (landscape, portrait, pano). To do that we wrap a nomination into a template, {{VIC}}. Here the user does not have to think in terms of pixels but simply specifies an orientation parameter
orientation=landscape (default)|portrait|pano
Based on that an image width is used, which assured that the image area is approximately the same independent of the orientation. Of course that is based on some assumptions of the most typical aspect ratios, 3:4, 4:3 and for panos is can be quite different, but here I took the average of some panos to get an appropriate scale. Here on FPC it does not have to be a rocket science, as the full size image should always be reviewed, but I do think it would be a good idea to wrap it up into a template anyhow as specfying portrait or pano for non-default aspect ratios is more understandable than having to figure out haw many pixels to use. It also makes it easier to build in more intelligence, like a more clear visual indication of when nominees can be closed as in VIC - that helps the closer or bot-assisted closure. Templates are already used in QIC. albeit very simple, but it seems like users involved in the circuitry in VIC and QIC does not have a problem with that. Once the template is implemented (the code in {{VIC}} and/or {{VIC-thumb}} could be used as inspiration) in, e.g. {{FPC}} the page preloading which happens when pressing the create new nom button need to be adjusted such that it opens with a prefilled FPC template. --Slaunger (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I am quite busy those days, so you will have to look for other users to make these templates. However, it really isn't that hard (its fun actually), or ask a good template coder like Rocket000 to assist you. --Slaunger (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Mmmm... I think we are overthinking about this one. The size of the FPC can easily be changed by the nominator. I did so in previous panorama nominations, increasing them to 600px wide. What about simply increasing the size for all nominations? It would give better hints on some aspects of the FPC, such as DOF, details, etc. (Example here). --S23678 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    I do not recommend to increase the preview size on the FPC page. Not only would that tempt further reviewers to skip viewing a page in full size, secondly, the size of the FPC page would increase much. It is already quite large and takes a long time to load on slow connections. --Slaunger (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Why are we bothering with this? Everyone should be viewing these pictures at full size, not just looking at the thumbnail. The size of the previews is irrelevant; it doesn`t matter even if they are just text hyperlinks, it's the full size picture that needs to be seen. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And as for 'gaining leverage'...  Confused: every picture should be assessed at full size, not by the size of the preview, correct? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Taking me as an example .. I dont view every picture in full-res. Often it's the first impression in preview which makes a picture interesting for me - so every picture should have the same chance. Fair, or not ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but I'd think that this would only be necessary if pano shots were not getting many votes; which (as far as I can see) is not the case. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is right now, there's no template used in nominations so there's no size parameter to add to anything. As Slaunger said, we would have to create some templates like {{VIC}}/{{VIC-thumb}} in order to do this. That's quite a drastic change (compare VIC with FPC). I'm willing to help create the templates, but so far this has only been about the size of the thumbnails, which IMO, is not worth completely changing the nomination format in order to address. It can't be fully automatic anyway since there is no way to make a template understand the images' original dimensions in order to base the preview size on (of course this may be possible with a bot, but that's beyond me).

Some less drastic easily implemented options: We can change the preload text to inform users what to change the size to if necessary. We can create a simple size template in order to avoid dealing with pixels (and prevent users from setting some completely inappropriate size). For example, the preload would have something like

[[File:Imagename|{{FPC-size|<!--change this to landscape, portrait, or pano-->}}|<!--insert caption here-->]]

If they forget the change it, it can default to the standard size. Rocket000 (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Rockets light-weight proposal is an adequate and simple solution, which only requires minimum work and which is just an adjustment to current procedures. --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll work something up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a very basic start with Template:FPCsetup - of course, it'll need to cover a lot more functionality before it's ready for use. I'd also suggest we work in multi-language support. (But I couldnt find the wiki-equivalent of a "switch" function, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
{{#switch:}}? :) There's also the template {{LangSwitch}}. Rocket000 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created {{FPC-size}} for the purpose. Please see it and its examples and give me some feedback if this is the intended behavior. If yes, i will modify the preloading template accordingly. --Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I dropped the ball on this. I've implemented your code (with some slight changes), and cleaned up the nomination stuff while I was at it - it should be a little cleaner and easier to use, with any luck. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
And...I've updated the template documentation accordingly, except that now the documentation does not work with the latest subst: you've included... Does it really have to be subst'ed? --Slaunger (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. I figured out how I could update the template documentation by subst'ing the examples. Has to be resubst'ed though is sizes are tweaked. --Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just copied the FPC-size code into {{FPCnom/Basic}} - the workhorse template that allows the friendly front end, so it doesn't really matter now, but long story short, if you don't subst: it, it leads to much messier output if {{FPC-size}} is subst'd. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Since you have now embedded FPC-size into the preloading template, would you do me the favor of deleting FPC-size again, since it has no use? --Slaunger (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. I hope the resulting template looks good to you =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and the resulting template looks just fine with me. --Slaunger (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Making reviews fairer for large imagesEdit

I, too, fully support this proposal, but wonder if we can go further? It has been a repeated complaint here that very large images (eg at full camera resolution) often get negative reviews because they are not as sharp, when viewed at full size, as a similar picture which has been deliberately downsized before uploading. We want to encourage images that are as large as possible, and the present approach of comparing sharpness at full size causes a voting bias against the very images we want (by no means all voters are able to make allowances for the softer appearance of large images). This is only going to get worse now that cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II take images at a native resolution of 21Mpx.

The issue has been dealt with rather cleverly in VIC by automatically setting a default on-screen-size that is to be used when reviewing (users can always view the full-size image, of course, but assessment is supposed to be done at the pre-defined resolution). I would suggest the same should be done here, but of course with a much higher default resolution (2000 x 2000 px?). We would need to copy and modify the VIC templates slightly, and change the FP voting guidelines accordingly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a very good solution for historic works, though: Historic works are usually fine at full resolution, but engravings particularly are not very well handled by the thumbnailing software, and thus can often have severe moiré at certain thumbnail sizes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Different arrangements may be needed for several types of non-photographic media. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Education may be the best choice here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
good luck! --Dschwen (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
How to handle panoramic pictures with that on-screen-size. A 10000x1000 pano would have only 200px in height then, right ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, much of the point of panoramas is that they're supposed to contain a lot of detail - otherwise you could just take a picture with a wide-angle lens and crop it. For example, there's no way I would have supported the Bad Hindelang panorama if it wasn't as sharp as it is - for that, its composition and light are just too ordinary. I do agree when it comes to normal high-resolution pictures (e.g. 8 MP) that if downscaled to 2 MP would be perfectly sharp, however. --Aqwis (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark II take images at a native resolution of 21Mpx

Can any of the amateurs amongst us afford this? I certainly can't - the current price is about 4 months take-home pay for me! My FujiFilm cost about 2 days' pay, though I would not go for FujiFilm again due to the disappointing lens quality. Too much chromatic abberation. On the issue of equalising apparent sharpness, one approach would be to fit images to the equivalent of an A4 paper size, which is roughly equivalent to "fit to screen" on a typical 15" to 17" monitor. Which would probably require some sort of display template on Wiki forcing images to roughly 1,000 by 1,500 pixels (quick guess).

BTW, what is SUL account? This seems to be needed as well as a sufficient number of contributions / edits on any Wiki project if one wants to vote for Picture of the Year. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've answered your question about the SULs at your talk page. Maedin\talk 07:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2008. Voting is now openEdit

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

čeština | Deutsch | English | français | हिन्दी | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Bahasa Melayu | русский | +/−

Closing a setEdit

I've been doing a bit of work today and yesterday to help close some of the nominations that have been hanging around for some time. So far I've found the whole process rather straightforward, but I can't find anything in the guidance on closing a set. I've been stumped by this one, a rather large set which has garnered enough support to be successful. Presumably, I would only select one of the 8 to put in the 4-pic gallery, but I'm wondering if everything else would be the same? I'm a little concerned about "flooding" the featured pictures list and the chronological list. Can anyone else offer some guidance or tips for the easiest way to deal with all 8 pictures? Thanks, :-) Maedin\talk 12:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Promote each of the set-pictures --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we need an additional Galery of FPs to cover sets? Is one option that sets be combined to form a single file rather than multiple separate images? A set should stand or fall as a whole set, but promoting all the images as separates could promote at least one unworthy image in some cases. I agree with Richard in this case. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I helped Karelj with the massive closure that included that. See what you think of this option: Commons:Featured_pictures/chronological I thought that it might be a good idea to note it as a set, though I don't know if that was the best option or not. I did it differently in the category listing (Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media) - maybe I should have used that option in both. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I like how you've done it, Adam, I think it's more appropriate to keep them as a set in the chronological list (as they weren't "chronologically" nominated) and that keeping them separate is ok in the actual FP list. The only thing is that the heading here has it as a set nomination, would it be better to say set promotion, or featured set, or something similar? As for Robert's suggestion, I also wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a separate gallery for sets, as they somewhat attract different criteria. The faults of a single image on its own is probably mitigated by its merit within the set, and its merits probably enhanced. However, in the meantime, I think that what Adam has done works quite well. Maedin\talk 16:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The only problem I see with set nominations as a category is that I can't see them having much connection to each other than being groups, and hence having a category for set noms might make it harder to find things.
Oh, one other thing I should mention: I had to make redirects to the set nomination for each of the file names so that the Assessments template would work. If we're going to have a lot of these, we should probably add an override function to the Assessments template's linking to the nomination. (Probably not a bad idea anyway: File:Pāhoehoe lava meets Pacific.jpg passed as an alternative to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lava enters pacific.jpg - but it had failed at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pāhoehoe lava meets Pacific.jpg - as it stands, there's no way to force the assessments template to link to the correct nomination. (com-nom does not actually override things, it only works if the template doesn't find a link first) No longer relevant - I fixed some documented but unimplemented options in the Assessments template. Just use com-nom=File:Lava enters pacific.jpg or the appropriate equivalent. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedEdit

I've made a few edits - no major changes, just tried to fix some really awkward language. Could still use a little work. The only major change was that I tweaked the order slightly: We don't want people moving the transcluded nomination to the archive until after they've done everything else, because that makes it invisible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove from the guidelines?Edit

There's this thing in the guidelines for nominators

  • Symbolic meaning or relevance…. 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.
    Should we remove it once and for all?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


  •   Keep --Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Does oppose mean we oppose its removal, or oppose it being in the guidelines? Anyway,   Keep. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right, Adam. That's all my English. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info My favorite guideline :) was removed from the guidlines by Lycaon with the edit summary "absurd statement". So, I guess there' nothing to discuss anymore.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've restored it: removing a guideline in the middle of discussion is probably not the way to go. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Keep, good pictures of ordinary subjects are QI, not FP, material. --Aqwis (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I agree with the general idea though maybe it could be rephrased to be more accurate. What do you think of: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is often a better achievement (or 'more interesting' or 'of better value') than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is 'sometimes' an extraordinary photograph -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the last part—"A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph"—needs to be removed altogether. This is a qualitative statement that is also an over-reaching assumption and generalisation. "Good picture"+"difficult subject" does not always equal "extraordinary", not to forget that one person's idea of a "good photograph" is very different from another's, and a difficult subject for some is ordinary for others, so this kind of sweeping judgement is null, in my opinion. I agree, however, with Alvesgaspar's wording, to encourage people to keep in mind the merits of the subject and not just the technical aspects of the candidate, but vote for removal of the last sentence. Maedin\talk 07:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   KeepI think it should all be kept as-is, and don't support a re-write. The way it's written now is pithy and communicates its point effectively. I believe that the reader can be trusted to understand that it's a general statement about inherently-subjective subject matter—in other words, that it's more of a philosophical statement of FPC rather than a technical guideline like the 2MP rule. Attempting to re-write it to make it some sort of technical criterion misses the point of the statement, I think. —Notyourbroom (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment This criteria is no use, if it is not applied in voting. Once I was told to reshot the icebergs that I took from a helicopter few miles south from North Pole, now I was told to reshot this image File:School of jacjs.JPG with a better camera as I took in a local aquarium. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Keep It's just a guideline --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Keep I consider it a concise way of explaining why one should support well done images of hard-to-capture subjects. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Keep For now, but leave this open to review of wording in perhaps 6 - 12 months when we have had time to think about it. The positive is that it reminds us to consider the difficulty of subject matter as well as the photographic issues like focus, lighting, etc. Related to this is another aspect of subject - Educate and Inform as Wiki goals, rather than simply to provide a library of winners of photographic competitions. Illustrations in Wikipedia articles should be of the best available technical quality. Which may mean imperfect but at least the subject has been photographed rather than completely missed. Like Mbz1' icebergs. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment This vote is ridiculous. This is not a guideline but an open door to abuse. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    •   Comment Lycaon, a statement regarding the potential for "abuse" arising from keeping that language in the guidelines seems not to assume good faith on the part of voters. I am unsure what "abuse" you would envision occurring, but votes here are open to all users and are fully transparent. Additionally, so far as I know, no user is ever required to redact a vote which was cast for a reason many others consider spurious or flawed (for example, by voting to oppose a historical image outright because it is unclear whether the image is meant to be featured on the merits of its original creation or on the merits of its restoration). The fact that we do not force redactions of votes implies to me that "abuse" is not a concern. If an individual user enacts "abuse" of some sort, the community has the capability to handle it easily by countervoting the "abuse," and by formulating new policies by consensus if absolutely necessary. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      •   Comment Woolly 'guidelines' are open to interpretation and are by definition not a guideline. That's where potential abuse sneaks in. Lycaon (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Blindfold review for FP candidatesEdit

Hi everybody! I would like to propose a blindfold review process for the featured picture candidates. The reason for that comes from the fact some photos have been judged more personally than technically. I believe that by hiding the photo author's name during the whole voting (review) process would result in more impartiality in the judgement of someone's work. Please, give your 2 cents about this proposal. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


  •   Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support If it's technical doable, why not. But only optional not general. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)   Oppose After further contemplation I think this makes less sense, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support If it's technical doable (that I doubt it is) I am for this proposal, if for nothing else just for fun :) We even could ask a reviewer to put the name of the photographer together with the vote, and see who gets it right :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's an excellent idea. See my comment below --S23678 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, "The reason for that comes from the fact some photos have been judged more personally than technically" - I demand proof that this happens to a large enough degree to deprive me of my freedom to review pictures as I wish. --Aqwis (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose based on discussion. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


  •   Comment It will be fun for sure. I mean it is fun to try to figure out who took an image, but I am not sure if it is possible. The uploader name is automaticly assigned to the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question what exactly do you mean "more personally than technically"? The idea in general could be fun but I agree with Mila, that it is technically not really possible to hide the author. And on the other hand I think I am long enough here that I think I would always recognize shots of the regular contributors/nominators. :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As "more personally than technically", I meant to say that some opposing votes have been expressed more based on who the author is than in the analysis of the author's photo. The same may apply for the other way around, that is, given who the author is, the photo gets a support. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you give an example? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry AngMoKio, but I will not point fingers to anybody here. I've seen reviews, although, in which some "retaliations" came due to previous oppositions rather than the quality of author's photo. Feel free to take a look at the review logs and you will find plenty of that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Hm...i am quite regular on fpc right now I don't remember such a case...though there might have been some. But I think that all regular contributors/voters judge nominations according to the things they see in the nominated pics. We should always remember that it should be the aim of every voter to keep the FPs at a reasonable high level - otherwise they lose its relevance. There is nothing wrong about opposing votes. You also have to think the other way round, you also shouldn't support or vote neutral bcs of personal reasons. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Actually we have a very fair voting procedure along with a nice community. I can't remember how many nominations I have opposed but I still get support votes on my own nominations - that's maybe because I do it in a fair way. But why not ? If someone wants to play venetian carnival and if it's doable I agree but only optional not general. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It would be fun to try but the idea is academic, I can't see any way to hide the picture info. As for the personnal votes, well, that is a small price to pay for the fun to participate in this forum. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'll confess that there are two users who consistently submit such high-quality images that (1) if the preview on the image page looks good and (2) if other people have already given support, I don't always bother to open the image up full-size before adding my support. And there is one other user whose nominations are underappreciated, in my opinion, and that fact is enough to bump a "neutral" up to a "support" sometimes. I'm not aware of the bias operating in the opposite direction, though—I don't think I've ever opposed (or failed to support) an image because of who created or nominated it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Before I vote, probably in favor, I think it would not be possible to hide the uploaders and photographer's name. Probably lead to some (mis)attribution issues. --Muhammad (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I appreciate the intention behind the idea, but I perceive the thinking as flawed. The reviewers who would oppose or support based solely on the creator/uploader/nominator of the image will be the ones who look deeply enough to find who it was, regardless of whether it's displayed on the nomination or not. Even if this information could be partially hidden, there is no way to hide who added the template to the list of candidates. This is a wiki, after all. This is a problem with the reviewers, not the process, and on a more personal note, I like seeing who has created and nominated images, as it's a way to acquaint myself with some of our brilliant contributors. I think it would be a shame to lose that aspect of FPC and turn it nameless and faceless. Not to mention that, if there are requests or comments with the image, how would the photographer or restorer or illustrator respond? By not signing his or her posts? By ignoring any questions? I'm sorry, I just don't think this will work, :-( Maedin\talk 07:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • That is something I've not taught through. You make a very good point here. I need some time to think how this could be worked around. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I list all the pictures I plan to nominate on this page. Anyone clicking on a nominated image can see the link to my page, and therefore me. Also, I usually leave a note on the page of the creator, letting them know I've posted their image. And who else nominates military pictures? Might I suggest that this is an exercise (however well intentioned) in futility? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


  • I already came up with an idea here. My original proposition was for another kind of bias, where full resolution images were getting rejected because they were not as crisp as downsmapled ones. My idea did not got an overwhelming support at the time, and I have no intention to force it down your throat another time, but I think it could be something you build up upon for your proposition. Click on the image to see the review page.
    •   Question That is exactly what I have in mind. Well done!!! How did you manage to hide the author's details (uploader, date, geolocation, and so on)? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Just hit "modify" on the preview page. Note that I wont be able to help more in the following weeks since I will be without internet access. Good luck with your proposition --S23678 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPGEdit

Click for a full size evaluation 
  •   Support
  •   Oppose...

--S23678 (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

    • "and I have no intention to force it down your throat another time" - well, considering that your page has a forced upper size for the image, that does seem exactly like what you're trying to do (sorry for the harshness). --Aqwis (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • "I think it could be something you build up upon for your proposition" - I just wanted to show a very easy way to hide the person who took the picture. It was for further modification... anyway --S23678 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • From this example, with presumably a proposed standardised preview size of about 1,000 by 1,000 pixels, it can be seen from the sharpness of the upland landscape and of the bird in flight, that the basic quality and definition is high. Some of the water shows areas of saturated white, which is inevitable with this type of scene and the normal JPEG compression process; but this is not enough to be a problem. This standardise size seems adequate. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • 1000x1000 is nothing! This is 2009, not 1999. Sorry, but I'd like to be free to review images however I want to guided only by a set of basic guidelines (e.g. the size guideline). Some pictures require a higher degree of sharpness than others, such as panoramas, as I explained some paragraphs above, while more unique pictures need not be as sharp. By applying the same outdated standards to all pictures, we adapt Commons to users with a resolution of 1024x768, no desire to ever print pictures or use them in larger resolutions, which is basically equivalent to stripping down websites in order to make them look the same in Lynx and a modern web browser. An important thing about our FP process is that we don't focus on encyclopedic value, like the English Wikipedia FP process does, and neither do we promote the most "artsy" pictures. For the great nature and city/landscape shots which make up most of our FPs, sharpness is an important quality. --Aqwis (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
        • The idea behind this proposition was, as I understand it, to get around one problem in comparing images, namely how sharp they look when viewed at the maximum resolution, whatever that happens to be. A 12Mpx picture, for example, viewed at 100%, may look a bit blurred, but is still showing details which would be impossible on a 4Mpx of the same subject. But there are subjects where a photographer with a 12Mpx camera may be tempted to set the resolution to 4Mpx (or down-sample it on a photo software package) as a means of making it look absolutele crisp and pin-sharp to avoid criticism of the 12Mpx version not being sharp. So this proposition aims to include in the judging system a standardised "thumbnail" which is both large enough to show detail, and small enough to equalise the 12Mpx and 4Mpx versions of the same view. For which purpose, roughly 1,000 by 1,000 (in practice 800 x 1,200 or 1,000 by 1,4000) is a good starting point. My comment on the waterfall example is intended to say that this size shows enough detail to judge some vital aspects of technical quality. (If this is intended to be a vote, then my comments here should be counted under   Support.
Of course, overall sharpness and resolution are vital factors. The 8 Mpx or 12Mpx version of a subject is far more worthy of FP status than 4Mpx. (Unless other factors such as composition, lighting, etc. apply.) Therefore, the 1,000 by 1,000 view should be only a stage in the process, and not the limit of resolution in which we view the image. For example, Torre Belem in the current list (with enough votes to become FP), a 25Mpx image, is sharp at full resolution and would be capable of being printed for a wall poster. And right now I wish I stood a chance of getting my camera close enough to the fox which has just come into my garden, and is cleaning itself with many of the mannerisms of a cat. So it is time to go. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"A 12Mpx picture, for example, viewed at 100%, may look a bit blurred, but is still showing details which would be impossible on a 4Mpx of the same subject" - this is not necessarily true. For example, a 4 megapixel picture taken with a good camera with an excellent lens may theoretically (if we use a slightly higher value like 6 or 8 megapixels it often happens in practice) have more detail than a 12 megapixel picture taken with a cheap point-n'-shoot. My point is that I want a way to differentiate between a sharp 12 megapixel picture and an unsharp one, for the purpose of reviewing pictures where sharpness is important (this doesn't apply to every picture). Sorry if I misunderstood you. --Aqwis (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


After reading about Richard's encounter with a tick (and just about killing myself with laughter) I became interested to know what other funny/interesting stories our photographers, illustrators and restorationists have to share. Even if you've seen a funny exchange or mistake on a nomination! Surely there are more seams of hilarity where this came from. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's one of my old nominations. Should I try this one again? I don't think so. Nothing has changed around here except I do not respond opposes the way I did before. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that's a good thing. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture criteriaEdit

Can we agree that before you remove a long-standing part of the Featured pciture criteria, yoiu should get consensus first? Because Lycaon's edit-warring to remove a bit he doesn't like. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Consensus first --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Cuerden: Edit warring is the act of reversing someone's edit continuously without given reasons. Who's edit stands? I made an edit, you started reverting an do until now! Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The thing had been in policy for years. I did not add the text. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Licensing termsEdit

With apologies if this is off-topic for this Talk page, but I'm not sure where else to start a debate where it will be seen by enough people. I have taken some photos in a museum where I had to sign a form saying that the photos were for my own private and non-commercial use. Fair enough in most situations. I said that I may wish to upload something to Wikipedia, and was given a contact person to apply for permission. In this particular case, where some modern objects would still be under creator's copyright, the museum must retain copyright control so that this is not breached. I was told, however, that for items old enough not to have any artist's or creator's copyright interest there may be no problem.

However, the Wikipedia / Wikimedia requirement that all images uploaded become free for any use, and that a restriction of Non-Commercial Use Only is not allowed, there is the possibility of a conflict. This would still apply even if I wanted to use my photos to illustrate an article about this museum.

Which leads to the point that there may be circumstances in which Wiki is denied some photos because the owner of the object in the photo places a Non-Commercial use only restriction. I think that, in this case, I will be granted permission to upload to Wiki the 3 or 4 out of 100 which I think could be worth uploading. Any comments on this as a general point, which has probably been debated before I joined Wiki. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed, and Commons does not concern itself with restrictions that a museum attempts to place on a photographer (that is a private matter between the museum and the photographer and does not affect the copyright in any photo that is taken). See Commons:Non-copyright restrictions and Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography. Of course, if the object being photographed is recent and itself has copyright protection this will not apply. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How hard it is to oppose an imageEdit

  • Strongly agree! Your turn to propose a raising of the FP bar (my previous proposal failed miserably)... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No need for a proposal. Self-reliance and being courageous to oppose if it's needed, without thinking about the disadvantage when getting opposes as a tit-for-tat response. Self nomination - is the basic problem. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. We say in my country that "hell is full of good intentions". Self-reliance, self-restriction & etc won't work because will hardly affect the vast majority of voters, and the influence of the bad guy's opinions (us, the regulars) has yet to be proven. And restricting self-nomination is killing most of the fun, which is the main incemtive of all this. I see only one way out, before FPC stops being a challenge, which is raising the necessary number of support votes to 10 or more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think about a restriction of self-nomination, just counteract the flood of self nominators who rarely oppose images because of lacking experience and knowledge about the fundamentals of FPC -or- being worried about counter opposes. This is the problem. We don't have many unbiased reviewers
Raising the number of support votes to 10 will never gain consensus, IMO. There must be other ways ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also 2 thumbs up from me! I also strongly agree. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • May somebody please explain the issue in plain language? I don't see a problem with the relatively high number of nominations of poor FPs, they usually get opposed quickly anyway. And honestly, the only people who care about an FP nomination's being in the FPC for a while despite having lots of oppose votes are people who, to put it bluntly, spend too much time in Commons and are thus out of touch with what's best of the project. Sorry if I misunderstand the issue. If the issue is too many poor pictures getting a low number of suppor votes and passing, I'd like to see some evidence that this is actually a problem. --Aqwis (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As for disallowing self-nominations, it should be out of the picture for obvious reasons. Doing so would make it very difficult for humble, new users to nominate their pictures; as they'd have to contact an established user and ask him to nominate their picture. This presents several problems; for one, they'd have to know who to contact, and the threshold of contacting a user on their user page is far higher, especially for new users, than creating a nomination on an impersonal project page such as COM:FPC. --Aqwis (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It takes some courage to oppose. It is much easier to support everything and be everyone's friend. This is however not very fair as we are supposed to be selecting the best of the best on FPC. Critiques are not always welcome nor accepted. As a regular 'opposer' I get kicked fairly often, but that's life ;-). Lycaon (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Lycaon made an important point here. There is nothing mean or bad about a fair oppose. The spirit should be: get critiques, learn from them and improve. Fact is, it doesn't help anyone if we are just nice with each other and only support and don't dare to oppose. I'd say we should be nice and fair but should oppose when necessary. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • There was never a discussion when one got a support vote :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested feedback on possible candidatesEdit

I recognize that editors here may be busy with prepared and current nominations, so I apologize if this is not the right venue to ask. I have assembled some images that I have uploaded from public domain sources or through image permissions on Flickr. I was curious if any of these had the potential to reach featured status. Obviously they would have to be renamed, cropped, cleaned up, etc. I would just like to know if any of them had a possible shot at being nominated. Feel free to be honest, you're not going to hurt my feelings (I didn't take the images). I'd appreciate any feedback. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think some of them certainly do have potential—the hornet over San Diego and the iguana stand out as definite possibilities. There are a few that I would knock out, namely the second San Diego image, the two food images, and the image of the Oklahoma building being demolished. The others are probably ok and could make it, though (as an example) I have known panos of stadiums to be opposed before due to a part of the field being cut off. The portrait of Ken Hom is nice, but he is suffering from floating head! :-)
I could be wrong about any of these: I'm not very experienced and I'm sure other users will have more to offer on the subject. Maedin\talk 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hornet image simply has too poor technical quality to gain my support, despite the difficult subject. The San Diego skyline is unfortunately ruined by the flag in front of an important part of the skyline. The stadium picture has too harsh shadows, I'd say. The two historical pictures as well as File:TedNugentPerforming.jpg wouldn't succeed due to their poor technical quality. The crop of File:AlViola07.jpg is too tight. The rest probably have a decent chance of success, although the out-of-focus rock in the Iguana picture is definitely detrimental to my overall impression of the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you know we have Commons:Photography critiques for this kind of feedback? Lycaon (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do now, thanks for the link. I appreciate the above comments, they've been helpful. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd probably vote for the stromboli if it were given a levels adjustment, and, if not here, it would certainly do well on en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FPC closingEdit

First of all I would like to thank the users who decided to give their hand to solve the closing problem here a FPC. I have done that job for quite some time and am well aware of the effort and attention required. Second, may I ask the team to take a closer and more frequent look at the withdrawn nominations and those with a FPX template? Removing both from the page in 24 hours would contribute a lot to maintain it cleaner and shorter, thus more inviting for everyone, including potential reviewers. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and I've just reminded myself of the rule of the fifth day, too. That and FPX and withdrawn nominations should keep the list shorter and cleaner, as you say. Thank you for the thank you, too, :-) (Though I know it wasn't only intended for me, of course!) Maedin\talk 07:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

comments on non-FPC mediaEdit

Where can I post pics/audio which I know don't have a place on FPC, but I want to hear comments about them? --SuperJew (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Commons:Photography critiques. It's not very active, though. Fg2 (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, is it also audio? --SuperJew (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't think so. Actually, Photo Critiques doesn't get a lot of attention. You can also try Wikipedias, which have a lot of traffic. Fg2 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ten Golden Rules for OpposingEdit

I have noticed that the quality of many opposing votes in FPC is quite poor. I've made some personal notes to help improving my own votes (here). It's just a sketch but might be useful for others. Please feel free to comment and improve. Any volunteer to make the rules for supporting? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, this is a good list; the only problem is getting people to A) read it, and B) follow it. My one suggestion to add is this:

Be Helpful - If there is something wrong with the image that can easily be fixed (for example: categorisation, borders, infoboxes etc.) instead of opposing, attempt to fix the problem, or notify the nominator (in the case of Geo Location).

You could substitute this one for No.5, which says basically the same thing as No.6.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another two (I'm on fire tonight!)

Be Prepared - Make sure that your monitor is calibrated before viewing. Also, ensure that you have a least a working knowledge of the Commons:Image guidelines, and that you are familiar with terms such as 'Chromatic Abberation' and 'Overexposure'.

Be Flexible - Always keep in mind that are always more pictures of the subject than the one that you are reviewing. Examine the category that the picture is in to see if there are better alternatives. Also check curent featured pictures to see if a better one has already been promoted. If the picture you are reviewing is better than a current FP, nominate it for delisting.

Any good? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, your ideas were incorporated. Still 10 Golden Rules ... and a Platine Rule. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I´m not fond of your last sentence. I don´t see the reason to delist pictures, if there are already featured ones of the same subject. There can easily be several pictures above the FPC bar. --norro 12:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. Feel free to remove that bit. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added quite a bit more to the "Be Helpful" point. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the list was based on the idea that we are defending something and need to fight off the hordes with all our might lest something get through. I don't really think people need encouragement to oppose - I would strike rule "1" as I think it belongs under the list that norro has created below. Each oppose vote has twice the power of a support vote, so you are negating the views of two other voters - use your vote wisely :-)
  • But a lot of the other "rules" are good guidance for voters. I would expand "7" to say be brave and oppose the nomination of even very experienced photographers where deserved!.
  • And I would add another 'rule', "Don't support or oppose on issues other than FP criteria relating to the picture at hand" (eg in retaliation for the nominators behaviour elsewhere or pushing barrows (private campaigns) regarding things not in the FP guidelines - It ruins your credibility, and encourages others to behave the same way with regard to their pet issues. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Rules for Opposing – guide for winnersEdit

  1. If you´re not sure about the image, place FPX to be on the safe side.
  2. If there´s a plant or animal on the picture, you can safely place FPX (“not identified”) without even looking at the picture. That´s pretty easy and saves you lot of time. (this is equally valid for missing geolocation)
  3. If the image is below 3MP, just oppose pointing out, that the resolution is close to the minimum.
  4. You can even use your opposing to express feelings about the the image author or nominator.

Beyond that always keep in mind: It´s your time wasted by the nominator. Why helping him then by giving meaningful explanation for your vote? --norro 12:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a past proposal: RecycleEdit

I was looking through the discussion archives here (don't ask why!) and noticed that it had been proposed in November to "recycle" nominations that have 4 support votes and no opposes, by the end of their voting period. It seemed to receive enough support and I think it would be a good idea to implement it. We currently have an FP candidate with 4 supports and no opposes that is due to be closed very soon, namely Langjökull Abyss, so it would be nice to determine if this "recycling" option can be put in place.

I think that re-listing the candidate for a whole nine days is excessive. It was previously suggested that the maximum be five. I would agree with five days, or I would suggest that the nomination be closed as soon as it receives 1 more vote, of either opposition or support. I also think there should be some way of making it clear that the candidate is intentionally being left unclosed. I can imagine some people being confused by its placement in the (mostly) chronological list, and attempting to either move it back to the bottom or close it. I am not sure how to avoid this mis-understanding, though I considered putting something like "Relisting for further input", in the heading (where it would otherwise say "not featured" or "featured"). I am also wondering if the small "Voting period ends..." text should be left the same, or struck and re-added, or left the same and a new Voting period note added?

May I have your input, ideas, suggestions, support? Thank you! Maedin\talk 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support - I agree it should be implemented as suggested, leaving the nomination for 5 days more. Inserting a line, a heading saying "Relisting for further input" and a new closing date is the simplest way. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support, 5 days sounds good. --Aqwis (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - suggest moving it back to the top with a note. I too think it's only tenable as 5 days. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sound idea. Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do not like the part "I would suggest that the nomination be closed as soon as it receives 1 more vote, of either opposition or support" as then it will be like a race to be the first one to discover a recycled nomination. I would support recycling without that part. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm not sure I like it myself. I guess my theory was that it could be seen as "unfair" that some nominations, on account of being short by just one vote, end up hanging around for a total of 14 days, garnering more support and oppose and (probably) increasing its chances of success. E.g. if it had 4 supports and 1 oppose at its time of closing, it would have been unsuccessful. If, after being re-listed, it gets 1 oppose and 1 more support (not unlikely), then it would be successful. If, however, you made the cut-off that "deciding" vote (the oppose in this case) then the outcome would be similar to how it would have been closed in the first place. Having said all of that, I don't think it's an issue and am perfectly happy with a straightforward relisting for 5 days. I just wanted to explain my thoughts behind that part, :-) Maedin\talk 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that extending it to four supports and no more than one oppose would deal with this issue. However, at the same time, I think that keeping it at just four supports, no opposes to start off would allow the system to be tested first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose. The most common reason for an image getting four supports only is that most viewers don't like it enough to be bothered to vote. That in itself is normally a statement that the image is not good enough for promotion. Maybe in the past some restorations of old images didn't gain enough support as voters weren't used to them, but that no longer applies and most such images (if good) gain plenty of votes. I have to say I am opposed to giving images that fail a second chance straight away. If the nominator thinks an image is good enough it is always possible to re-apply for FP status in another six months or so. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

But what if we start getting some new type of image? And there are still a few types that are, at best, somewhat slow to garner votes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with Michael on this one. There were even proposals to raise the passing vote, this recycling is akin to lowering the barrier. Enough pictures make it these days so there is no need for that. And if new classes of images present themselves, well, they will have to run the gauntlet and see if they survive. We've all been there and done that. Lycaon (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A few months ago I have supported because of pictures with a small interested party - but now with that endless flood of noms I'am more friend by raising the support votes to 10   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm help pleaseEdit

I tried to nominate a picture but I'm confused... :( (I feel so stupid.) Picture:


Someone please help! That's probably my favourite picture and I wanna nominate it... --Mitternacht90 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On COM:FPC is a description. Right underneath the heading "Adding a new nomination" is a box in which you have to copy the filename. Where did you get stuck? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I just dunno how to do it... :( --Mitternacht90 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Give it a go, it is a wiki, we have the power to undo your mistakes :-).
Basically the process involves 2 steps - creating a page for the votes to go on, and then adding a bit of code to the main FPC page that displays your entry there.
1) To create the required page, paste the name of your image into the box under "Adding a new nomination" on the FPC page and click the "Create" button. For example adding "File:Olympus_Mons_alt.jpg" to the end on the name in the box will create the page "Commons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Olympus_Mons_alt.jpg" (This creates an editable text page with a picture of your image on it).
2) Then add the bit of code :
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus_Mons_alt.jpg}}
to the top of the page here :-).
There are a few edits to do on the page created in the first step (details show up when creating the page), but just remember to save the page at each of the two steps detailed above and you will have a viable nomination :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I did it: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympus Mons alt.jpg. It is indeed a very nice image. Yann (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Edward Walsh - Queenstown, Upper Canada on the Niagara (a.k.a. Queenston, Ontario).jpgEdit

Would anyone else care to have a look? We're a little low on Canadian images, as far as I can tell, so I was kind of hoping to fix this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing own nominations?Edit

I'm an honest girl and I wouldn't dream of fudging results or doing anything less than appropriate here; however, I also care about perception and propriety, so I would like to know what others think. I have been doing a lot of closing lately; and I'm tempted to say that I'm pretty much the only one closing at the moment—on the other hand, as I try to do it at least every other day or every three days, it doesn't, perhaps, give other people much opportunity. In any case, I have now closed three of my own noms, and although they aren't my images, I can appreciate that this may be considered borderline COI to some. At the moment, going through the next images to be closed, is one of my noms, only this time it isn't a wildly clear promotion; technically, 9 supports to 4 opposes does make it a promotion, but perhaps close enough that I could be suspected of . . . not being neutral? I don't know, but it has led me to wonder if maybe opinions here are that I shouldn't be closing my own noms, no matter what the count is. Suffice to say that, if there were one more oppose, I would quite happily close this as not featured; but my word on that subject probably means very little! What do you guys think about a nominator closing her/his own nominations? Is this a case of "avoid the very appearance of evil" or is it a case of "assume good faith"? Maedin\talk 15:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to avoid closing your own nominations. There can be no possibility of any conflict of interest as the closing precess is a purely mechanical one, and is based simply on vote-counting. That is different from, say, the English Wikipedia where the closer has to make a value-judgement based on "consensus". Self-closing has been done frequently here over the years, and there has never been any issue. Thanks for continuing to do it for the project; it's a time-consuming and pretty thankless task, I know. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Michael. I had been assuming that was the situation but thought I might as well check, :-) Thanks! Maedin\talk 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


I am planning on nominating a number of images by the talented Mr. Böhringer for featured picture status. The trouble is, the descriptions of the images are in his mother language, German. As I am not fluent, and the internet translators I've tried deliver dodgy results at best, would there be anyone conversant in English and German willing to translate?

These are the files in question:

Upcoming set nominationEdit

I'm working my way through the 9 original illustrations to "The Hunting of the Snark". Shall I set up the nominationsimilarly to the last one, or would some other format be preferred?

They're all of similar quality, except, perhaps, for the illustration of the map joke. (The map is blank, making it equally useful everywhere - so Henry Holiday dutifully prepared a blank map) - but, you know, completeness =)

Sample: File:Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 1.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Template for nomination notificationEdit

I've cooked up a new template, to let the creators of the pictures you nominate know that their work has been selected for review. Template {{SarcNom}} can be found here; just follow the directions on the page and the template will automatically sign your name and the date when it is used. If you don't like the colour, or aren't fond of an Australian greeting; feel free to take the code and make your own! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi {{subst:READERNAME}}/everybody
I created {{Fp-res}} as new template for closed FP nominations. The use of this template would be a) to advance sep 1) and 2) on Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished b) to have a template that can be changed easily if the result at the bottom should look different or if some new gadgets should be included. Moreover: All pages would be categorised in Category:Closed featured picture votes which does not exist so far but which as such would be categorised in Category:Featured picture candidate vote archives.
May you tell me what you think about it and if there would be something you would change.
If there is no responce at all I will not care and do that change.
--D-Kuru (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there is something wrong with it at the moment? No "u" parameter. Maedin\talk 06:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It works like it should. The „u“ parameter switches the template for headlines and results.
Example {{fp-res}} is created for headlines. Depending on the result it becomes ", featured" or ", not featured". {{fp-res}} would become the resultline which we actually have.
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, forgive me because I'm rather dim, but I can't figure out how it works. I tried and all I got was the bold No U Parameter message. Can you show an example of the output and exactly how the closer would use the template? I'd rather not admit how clueless I am, but if I say nothing, you will just make the change and I will have to admit it later, anyway! Thanks. Maedin\talk 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually I planned to inegrate a simple how-to-use on Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished so that you just would have to copy the text.
I closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPG. You can have a look how it nearly should work.
Actually the „u“ parameter should make it a headline or a result. Example:
1) {{fp-res|u=h|res=nfp}} would become ", not featured" wich would be used in the headline. That option does not work so far so I think I have to fix some stuff. Moreover I want that just {{fp-res|u=h}} is enough. May that wont work, I'll have to check it.
2) {{fp-res|u=r|sup=x|opp=y|neu=z|res=nfp|sig=--~~~~}} would become
result: x support, y oppose, z neutral => not featured --D-Kuru (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I planned that you don't need to care about your signature, because it would be included automatically. Thats also what I want to fix before the template is used everywhere.
Right now I turned that option off, but it also should include a category: [[Category:Closed featured picture votes/{{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}/{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] so the category today on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPG would be [[Category:Closed featured picture votes/2009/June|Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPG]]
What I want to fix before usage is:
a) That you can use that template as headline (but that may does not work anyway)   Done --23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
b) That your signature gets included automatically
c) That you can place {{Fp-res}} also at the left side without any space that you get that blue border
Do you have some more questions?
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the examples and the clear explanations. I understand fully now! I thought that the template would change the look of the comments, but I can see from the one you closed that it would remain the same, which I am pleased with. I guess now I'd just like to know what allowance is made for closures other than fp or nfp? For example, I sometimes need to put ", withdrawn" in the heading and withdrawn as the result. Also, I don't do it myself, but I notice that other closers like to mention when a closure is being done under the "rule of the 5th day". Anyway, again, thanks for the detailed explanation, I appreciate it. (P.S. It would be very clever to not need a space!! :D ) Maedin\talk 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the code on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jasná Ski Resort - skilift on Chopok.JPG. As you can see the headline-thing works as it should.
I added a withdrawn and a FPX option. Now "res=wd" becomes ", withdrawn" and "res=fpx" becomes ", FPX". I will have a look at the 5th day option. May you can show me an example.
I tested some ideas but for now I have no idea how I can get rid of the space ("<pre>" does not work, because it also works like <nowiki>) at the beginning and how I can integrate option that the signature gets integrated when you save the dit no matter what you do. Let's see if I can fix that as well.
--D-Kuru (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I made a small change so that real words can be used in the template parameters for example "result=withdrawn". That makes the template syntax much easier to read and to remember. /Ö 07:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This change makes the results look the same with or without a space before the template. /Ö 07:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ö for that change. Do you may know how you can iclude the signature automatically?
--D-Kuru (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected imageEdit

Could someone with the appropriate permissions please add com=1 to the assessments template of this image? I would wait and do it myself, but there is no indication of how long the page might be protected for. Thanks! Maedin\talk 20:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, the QI logo should be removed from the template. No consensus on that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    •   Done (both) Lycaon (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been combining them when I see them separate, as I have noticed it done that way elsewhere. And, in my opinion, it looks better than having several mismatched templates. How is one supposed to know that there is "no consensus"? The template allows for it, other people do it, it looks ok to me . . .? Maedin\talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lycaon. Maedin\talk 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shakespeare's King John at Drury Lane Theatre.jpgEdit

I think this one got a little sidetracked. Any other views on it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 6".