Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Earliest posts

(added header to these earlier posts)--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting fed up with counting votes, moving pictures after on due time and so. Infrogmation and Roger Zenner took care of it too. I do not intend to do it for some time now. So, I'd like people who enjoy proposing pictures to do the chores too :) enjoy ! villy ♦ ✎ 19:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll do my very best :)
But what's exactly to do (in case of featured and not featured). As it seems, it's not enaugh to delete it from the candidates and move it - if featured - to Template:Featured pictures. Kind regards, norro 21:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Simple
  1. You tag the template (like Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Varenna Clouds.jpg) with "featured" or "not featured"
  2. You move the template to Commons:Featured picture candidates/Old
  3. If it's featured, you add the picture to Template:Featured pictures, list
villy ♦ ✎ 21:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, i did it three times, but just because the result was clear. Is there a convention, in which case a picture is featured if it's not so clear? 2/3 or 75% support? i did not really find a hint about that. Thanks, norro 08:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try too. -- Fabien1309 10:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, i make a proposal to some kind of guidelines for candidates and becoming a featured pic. I would like to here your opinion to that. Feel free to edit. Kind regards, norro 11:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest also adding the tag {{FeaturedPicture}} to the image description page of each newly featured picture. --MarkSweep 07:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What to do after voting is finished

Please see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. --MichaelMaggs 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Logs

A minor point really but... if a featured picture crosses over into two months, should it be placed into the log for the month it was nominated or into the log for the month the decision was taken? -- Joolz 00:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, into the log for the month the decision was taken. Regards, norro 16:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two nominations removed. Sanity check sought.

I have removed two nominations, since a newer version of the Comet Hale-Bobb has received some support. If this incorrect, please feel free to restore them. They commented out of "Template:Featured_pictures_candidates" LoopZilla 11:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rules

Hello, where can I read more about the rules for the featured pictures? How long is the voting time? How many support votes are required? -- Thanks a lot, Pjotr 8 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Hi Pjotr,
you can find the formalities on Commons:Featured picture candidates (other languages in the navigation bar on top).
Regards, norro 8 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Early termination

Moved to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates which is a better place for it, and it should spark more discussion too. (Hope you don't mind) -- Joolz 02:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever did I do?

I tried to nominate a picture, but I expect I did something seriously wrong with THIS template. I do NOT wish to mess up things, so please tell me where I went wrong on my Wikipedia user page. I sincerely hope I didn't ruin your day! Regards, Dennis. --Dennis Nilsson 05:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Orphan pic

Can someone sort out the formatting for the HalfDome pic currently showing at the bottom of the page but not appearing in the edit box? I don't know how to do it. Thanks - MPF 15:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i fixed it. Regards, norro 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Easier voting?

Hi,

I found it quite difficult for new users to klick on the edit button and search for the right template to edit or copy & paste the Picture Name behind their existing URL to do their voting. So I changed my Image-Link into a direct link to the voting page for this pic. What do you think of this? --SehLax 17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Err, what's so hard about editing the section of the image you want to vote for? Jon Harald Søby\no na 18:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
If you visit Commons:Featured_pictures_candidates as a new user, you will click on Edit. Then you notice that the pictures aren't included in this site, so it's not clear that you have to click on the templates listed below. And you have to keep the filenames in mind cause the images here are listed alphabetically but in the ordinary site they're of course listed chronologically. It's not hard for me any more cause I now just visit the Template:Featured_pictures_candidates and just copy&paste the filename into my browsers URL field. But for the first time it actually was not too easy cause there is no instruction. And now I still find it complicate cause it could be easier for users that are new here. --SehLax 19:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Why, you're right. On COM:FPC there are no section edit links. That can – as far as I know – only be achieved by writing __NOEDITSECTION__ somewhere in the edit field, but I cannot find that anywhere. Most peculiar. Something ought to be done about it, as you say, but the way you suggested seems a bit hard to me. Perhaps there is an easier way. (Or, preferrably someone knows why section edits isn't working?) Jon Harald Søby\no na 20:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's clear to me that there can't be any section edit links cause the sections are just in the seperate templates that are included in COM:FPC but not in COM:FPC itself. So this will be senseless. And __NOEDITSECTION__ is wrong here anyway cause it will make editing sections impossible!! --SehLax 19:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe a seperate link Vote next to the heading of each pic would be better cause the long link-heading will make the version history of a pic look very silly. --SehLax 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Uhm, I see the section edit links on COM:FPC... -- Joolz 13:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm too silly. Sorry for your time. I'll fix my link into the ordinary style. --SehLax 13:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
SehLax: Perhaps I chose the wrong wording; I know what __NOEDITSECTION__ does, what I meant was I couldn't find one causing the no section edit problem. Anyways, it works for me now. It seems Shizhao fixed it somehow, so it's OK now. Jon Harald Søby\no na 16:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
No, no, you're right. I just didn't ever saw the edit section links. And when I used my new heading, I added the __NOEDITSECTION__ Tag in my template to avoid these long titles in the version history. So it was completly my fault. --SehLax 16:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, then I understand. =) Jon Harald Søby\no na 17:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree on the result!

I do not agree on the result of the vote for the photograph: Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Nord america.jpg

The result is 6 nominations and not 5 a vote is forgotten. Can you correct that, thank you! view historical: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Featured_pictures_candidates&oldid=712196

This was maybe hard to count for Shizhao because MPF didn't put his {{support}} on the left side :-). I'm sure he will correct that. (C'etait peut-être difficile de voir le {{support}} de MPF parce-que c'est mis à droite. Je suis sur que Shizhao va correcter ça.) --SehLax 17:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's actually seven if you include the nominator, I'll correct the count. -- Joolz 21:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Fixed -- Joolz 21:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The rules say "Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.". So, there are 6 counting supports. But ok, it does not change anything ;) -- aka 21:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

clean historic picture?

Hello,

I would like to propose a historic picture out of a dramatic period. I like the foto for its structure and the momentory of the grave moments. I would appreciate your comments as the picture is very damaged by the time. Is it better to keep the defaults and the historical aspect of this picture or to clean it in Photoshop?

And it is perhaps not the good place to propose this type of image?

Here is the picture concerned:

Buchenwald april 1945

Luc Viatour 12:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think, you should clean the picture a bit and i think, even this kind of picture can be nominated here. norro 22:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, it is corrected in Photoshop Luc Viatour 10:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,I'm not vandalising

I just tried to nominate a picture and it seems as if I inadvertently deleted the whole page including all templates, don't know how to undo it; sorry, can anybody help? Nouly Dec. 26. 12:57

Did I do this right?

I just tried to nominate a picture, but now there is just a broken link at the top of the page. Is there a step that I missed? Does someone or some tool come along and fix things up automagically? Thanks for your help. --BostonMA 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the start of your new nomination. Click on it and paste your actual nomination inside it, and then you save the whole discussion will show up on the full page. pfctdayelise 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

For those who have this on their watchlist...

You might also like to put this on your watchlist: Template:Featured pictures removal candidates. It now appears on COM:FPC below this template. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please put your votes into the appropriate sub-chapter

Isn't this page supposed to be language neutral? Complicating the voting process with different subchapters seems to contravene this. --Dschwen 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What subchapters are you referring to? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
these for example. But never mind, this was changed now. --Dschwen 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Some points of critique on the current approach of "featured pictures"

The current process does not necessarily result in usable images. The wikipedia is not a photo-contest, but an encyclopedia. I have seen featured images that are not even put on the right pages. Image:Passionfruit flower07.jpg is featured but it is not listed on the Passiflora caerulea page. That having said it probably is Passiflora caerulea, but since also an ID is missing on the photopage itself, the image is quite useless for an encyclopedia.

At the same time commons is full of (sometimes very crappy) photos and it can be very hard to find a featured photo on a particular subject page. Take the same example of Image:Passionfruit flower07.jpg. It is in Category:Passiflora, but there is no indication at all on that page that this is a featured image.

It should be much more usefull to have a selection of "good" photos on each subject page. If you really want a generic list of featured images, then the images should first have been preselected on a subject page. Another condition for a featured image should be that the image is actually being used in articles on the wikipedia. What is the point of having Image:John-bell-II-B-6.jpg and Image:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg (to mention some examples from the current candidates) as featured images when they are not actually used in articles?

Taka 14:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I have altered the category page to indicate the Featured Picture Category:Passiflora. I have some images of Banksia's that need to be properly classified which I haven't yet uploaded, but I have access to be able to identify the plant properly. Not every one has this type information, but if photographers are able to categorise the picture in a general category that should be sufficient. Then if another editor is able to indentify the subject with more detail then they could add it to another more detailed category. Gnangarra
  • I to agree that images should be considered on the value they add to articles, as well as the way they are presented. Generally when an image is uploaded to commons its for a particluar wiki article anyway(I know an exception would be images from flicker) and that it be could a requirement of the nomination that the wiki article be linked to the nomination. Maybe it would be more appropriate if there were admin people responsible for different categories and their sub categories and these people Nominated FPC but does commons have enough regular individuals with appropriate knowledge (ie botanist, for plant images) who are willing to put the time in. Then we could vote only on these images once voting is completed these admin people could maintain a gallery in appropriate category of featured pictures. Gnangarra 02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


  • Commons is not Wikipedia. Commons is bigger than Wikipedia and has a much wider Project scope. If you want to award featured status for images that illustrate articles well, please vote at w:WP:FPC. It should be much more usefull to have a selection of "good" photos on each subject page. Absolutely, I agree. So everyone should feel welcome to improve galleries in any way they can. Galleries are a great tool for showcasing the best of a category. So just go ahead and do it! There is nowhere near enough admins or even regular community members here to police gallery pages for quality, though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the link to Project scope. I was under the belief that commons was a storage point for wiki images so they could be use across the different language wiki's, next time I'll read a liitle bit deeper. Gnangarra
If you want to award featured status for images that illustrate articles well, please vote at w:WP:FPC. I do not agree with this at all. Commons is for uploaded images that are usable for all wikimedia projects. The "Project scope" states explicitely that commns is "targeted at other Wikimedia projects". I don't see why I should vote on the English wikipedia (where I am barely active) and which is only a single wikipedia. But the advice shows that the featured images on commons is nothing more then a photo contest. The selection of Featured images should also be "targeted at other wikimedia projects". Taka 05:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, vote on whichever Wikipedia you like. My point was rather that there are so many Wikimedia projects (and constantly new proposals), with diverse needs, that it is impossible to predict where and how an image might be used. But the advice shows that the featured images on commons is nothing more then a photo contest. ...Yes, but so what? I have not noticed that any other Featured Pictures Candidates at any other project is much more than this. (To Gnangarra: It is that, but it's more than that as well.) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
i do agree that what ever the purpose of the image the status of featured picture is result of the ability of the photographer/editors produce the image. Therefore only by a contest(judged by peers) can an image be identified as worthy of such status. Gnangarra 15:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, vote on whichever Wikipedia you like. I don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you think you can rid of another opinion then yours by just telling someone to vote elsewhere, you are of course wrong. And very unpolite as well. Besides that, many wikipedia projects don't have featured images.
As for images actually being used. It should be up to the nominator to show that the image is actually being used. Nomination of images that are only just uploaded is then indeed harder. That's a good thing in my opinion. Maybe only images that have a status as featured image on one or more wikipedia projects should be nominated here (but that would require more wikipedia projects having featured images).
The point of featured images here should not be that they are just eye-candy, but that they beautifully illustrate something encyclopedic. Taka 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think you can rid of another opinion then yours by just telling someone to vote elsewhere, you are of course wrong. That wasn't my intention, merely that FPCs on different projects have different aims and it seems to me that the aim you want for commons:FPC already exists as WP:FPC. If you want to try and instigate change to the current FPC requirements here feel free to go ahead, I just don't think it will be popular. eg see Criteria discussion (2005). Maybe only images that have a status as featured image on one or more wikipedia projects should be nominated here But then what would be the point of merely duplicating the work of the WP:FPC? I don't think that would be an improvement at all. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There are more wikipedias then just the English one. There are many people like me having an account on en.wikipedia for the sole purpose of not doing anonymous interwikis. As the name "commons" suggests, it is a common project of different wikimedia projects. What happens on the English wikipedia in terms of featured pictures is only of interest to the English wikipedia. I am not sure if you are active on any other wikipedia then the English one, but if you would, then these arguments might get clear to you.
The criteria "discussion" you linked to, is just three people each writing a line. It is interesting that Solipsist says "In fact we explicitly direct contextless images to FPC on Commons". This is a very strange "habit". The English wikipedia dumps nice, but further useless pictures into the commons Featured Picture Candidates. Sounds again as if commons is a subproject of the English wikipedia.
I don't care if my opinion is popular or not. It makes sense, that's what is important. The English-wikipedia people might outnumber those working on a non-english wikipedia on commons. But hopefully some do have understanding that commons should do more then just support the English wikipedia. Taka 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the point, commons is not just supporting the English wikipedia. Commons is a free media archive (which happens to be used by wikipedia). Featured pictures should be judged on photographical merit only. Commons FPs do not cater to the needs of certain Wikipedias. So bumping images that do not fit the tighter criteria of en.wp from en:FPC to commons is perfectly legitimate. --Dschwen 10:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
No. it's not. Pictures at commons should at least have some use for whatever wikimedia project. There is no wikimedia project for photography. If pictures have no use on the English wikipedia, but have a use on another wikimedia project (and that has been made clear in the nomination), I will have no objection. Featured Pictures on commons should be of use to some wikimedia project, not be the dumping place of en:FP. If somebody wants to get glory for their photos, then please go to flickr.com or something comparable.
en.wikipedia should not solve its problems by passing those problems on to commons. Taka 13:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Commons is obviously NOT a subproject of en.wp. I only ever mentioned en.wp because obviously you can speak English. Most of us are involved with projects other than en.wp (including myself).
Two points: 1. The image nominator can easily find one article in some project to insert their photo. If it's relevant or not, well, is that going to be the next check? That's not really for Commons people to decide - it's for local projects. 2. Commons itself is an extension of the projects in its gallery pages, which provide many more images than any article in any project reasonably could . Many articles have links to Commons galleries (especially if the subject is a common one and thus easily photographed, like roses or sunsets). So if an image is in a Commons gallery, does it qualify as "encyclopedic" or not? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If the nominator can so easily find an article to stick the photo in, then why not do so? We can see if it lasts. Or maybe the photo should have been in an article for a certain period of time, to prove it is a worthy illustration. A commons gallery where an article links to is obviously not part of an article.
It is really very simple: commons is for support of wikimedia projects. Pictures that don't support wikimedia projects should not be here. Especially not as featured picture. Of course some pictures can be posted here before there is an actual article on a wikimedia project. But there is no problem to wait untill the picture is actually being used in an article, before nominating it as a featured picture. Taka 13:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents... I would like to quote three lines from the Project Scope page: (1) "Wikimedia Commons is a common central repository of all Wikimedia projects.", (2) Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted.", and (3) "The quality of the files should be as high as possible."

I think that the general conclusion should be that pictures should be at least useable as an illustration in a Wikipedia article. If that is not the case, this picture should, in principle, not be on Commons. But as long as this requirement is met, it's basically OK, and we can "work from there".

I think that there are three types of picture: basic ones, realy good ones, and artistic ones.

To illustrate my point, please consider the picture called Image:ING House Amsterdam.JPG. It is used as an illustration in the article on postmodern architecture on the Ditch Wikipedia. It is nog a very good picture, but neither am I a very good photographer. But it shows what the building looks like. I am sure somebody else could supply us with a better one. That would take us from stage 1 to stage 2.

A really good photographer would undoubtably be able to make some stunning photographs of this building, or parts thereof. Such a photograph would give an extra "spice" to the article. It probably should not replace the stage 2 picture, but enhance the article.

I think the Featured Pictures process could put us on the trail of these stage 3 photos. If that works well, I think it is extremely useful.

Oh, and BTW, may I add here that I do like Commons very much? MartinD 09:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Image:INGHouse1.jpg and Image:INGHouse2.jpg (in category Amsterdam) are better... MartinD
  • Well the basic point is that commons is a media file repository which is targeted at wikimedia projects. That doesn't mean that every picture actually has to used somewhere right now, it only should be potentially usefull sometimes. Maybe an article where a particular picture can be used will be created in the future, maybe it will be used on wikinews in some news-article, maybe it's just being used in a gallery here on commons which is linked in an article, or there might be other reasons. So there are a lot of pictures that are not used directly in an article and that's ok.
The featured pictures are just what we believe are one of the best pictures in commons, nothing more and nothing less. There are no special rules on the content of these pictures if it's good for commons it's good as fp and I don't think we should change that. -- Gorgo 22:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

How to add new candidates

Hi, there always have been instructions on how to add new candidates on top of this page, but these instructions have been removed several times. I created a new page COM:FPC/HowTo, where you can find more detailed instructions in several languages (yet german and english). I hope, that will make the procedure more comprehensible. It would be nice, if you could add instructions in languages, you speak. Cheers, norro 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Norro for the help page, it really made it easy for me to nominate the pic, however I was confused about where to put that text (because the "help" text was on a separate page, but it said "put the text on top of this page") :) I'll rephrase it in an effort to make it easier to understand for a newbie :) Waqas.usman 01:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I just updated the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FPC/HowTo. Please review http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:FPC/HowTo and make sure it's not saying anything wrong. Waqas.usman 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Criterias in votes

Sometimes I think there are users who are here to  Oppose more than often with the same argument or even none. A vote (either  Support or  Oppose should always be connetcted with a poper reason and of course the signature. I found many pictures where the same users give the same reasons all the time.

This is a non-prof- platform for non-prof work, dont forget that. There are losts of GOOD pictures which would never make it into any book or so, but there are GOOD please aknowledge that...

number of nominations

I think a nominator should nominate 2 images max per week, it's not a real problem now, but in the future... imagine 200 or 300 images in Template:Featured pictures candidates, we will need one hour to look at them. YolanC 20:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Imagine how many nominations are necessary if we are ever to produce 7 featured pictures a week! and that is at least one goal. (for COM:POTD.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the "Featured pictures candidates" as a factory for COM:POTD but... if we need 7 pics per day, and a pic stays 15 days, there should be at least 7*15 = 105 pics candidates, and if we "feature" 1 pic / 3, there should be 300 pics, I think the page will be hard to look at. YolanC 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this method is definitely not scalable. Need a different method. Maybe front page is a gallery and you click through to the nom... pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Or if people are just less fussy, we can promote more ;P pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like there to be only featured pictures in COM:POTD. But I don't understand the calculation. Don't we only need one picture per day (= 7 pictures per week)? That would mean that we would have to have 15 future featured pictures among the candidates in average. If the 1/3 ratio estimation is correct, then there should be 45 candidates at once (well, some disappear after one week, but still..), which is almost what we usually have now.

Anyway, I like the suggestion about a limited number of nominations per nominator, when there is a problem with users that nominate too much. But maybe not yet. --Boivie 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

About the calcul : I don't remember where does my '7' come from ... Sorry :-p YolanC 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think thta there should be a higher number of promotions, how many images are being load to commons each day? the current FP process is promoting only on average 1 per day. I think that people like pfctdayelise should be given the ok to promote to FP status say 10-20 images a day. That all new uploads get categorised automatically into say a monthly group category:Images loaded May 2006 Gnangarra 03:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, thanks for the vote of confidence but I  Support vastly more images than ever get promoted. There would suddenly be a lot of FPRCs. :) Perhaps we need an intermediate "Good pictures". We could make the requirements simpler: only support votes, if you get > 5 in a week, it's marked "good". Then POTD could be chosen from "Good" photos. en.wp has w:Wikipedia:Good articles, which I actually don't really like, but it makes more sense for images, to me. I dunno. What do people think? Then we reserve FP for the absolute best of the very best. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"Good" photo does make sense, with a minimum of say 5 support vote wouldnt that just be another FP, suggest maybe that "good" images could nominated by anyone and promoted by any single admin person. That good photo status be a requirement for FP nomination, this would eliminated edit versions, or image A/image B votes that are occuring. Gnangarra 05:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it might help. But it would be different to FP because there would be only positive votes: you can't vote oppose. You can make suggestions for improvement of course. BTW anyone can promote an image to FP status if it makes the requirements, you don't have to be an admin. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Also being an admin says nothing at all about your ability to evaluate images, so I really wouldn't tie adminship to anything like that. There are many, many suberb photographers here and they are mostly not admins. I would say most FPC "regulars" are not admins. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Good pictures"

So what do people think? (See discussion just above.) "Good pictures", as a prerequisite to a FP nomination. Easier to attain, shorter voting time and should be more friendly to newbies. Could also become a prerequisite to POTD if people want. Great idea or just more hassle and bureaucracy? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its good idea. --Wikimol 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As much as I oppose creeping featurism and bureaucracy, which I think this project would be a clear example of, I have to admit I do like the idea. Not so much to take some load off of FPC, but Good Pictures would be a great way to offer some sort of peer review / quality control for images — given that we have so many, it would be nice if we could distinguish between the best of the very best, the nice ones, and the rest of the pile.
However, I am worried about FPC becoming even more selective if we implement Good Pictures, and while that is not necessarily a bad thing, I feel it would promote a little bit of snobbishness which has been remarkably absent from the Commons in the past, and I wouldn't like to see that change.
Moreover, in the distant future, perhaps, we should aim for all our pictures to be Good Pictures. That would keep the quality control aspect going, which hasn't been a huge problem in the past, but could be as Wikimedia (and the world's knowledge of it) grows. —UED77 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Low resolution

I think that in "featured pictures" there are too many pictures with an insufficient resolution! Many recent pictures made by experienced photographs have a too low resolution. I have the feeling that it is a way to make advertising knowing that their pictures are not exploitable outside a small web window. Anybody who would wish to use these pictures for a printed publication would not be able to do so and that is a pitty! It would be necessary to be more drastic with small resolution pictures which do not have any technical limit to justify.~--Luc Viatour 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Overall I have to disagree. From what I see, there is far too much carping about image sizes. Too many people seem to think that quantity beats quality and too many people seem to have lost sight of what Featured Pictures is all about - which is encouraging people to contribute good pictures. We shouldn't have any absolute limits on image size. It is quite possible that a 64x64 pix thumbnail could be so exceptional an illustration that it should be featured.
A good case in point is the current Death of Marat nomination. One of the principle objections so far is about image size, where as the real issue ought to be whether it is a clean an accurate representation of the original painting. We also have this version which is smaller, but arguablly a more vibrant and accurate illustration of the original. My only concern is that it might be a little too high contrast and too saturated - still better than the nominated version though. -- Solipsist 22:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Simplifying the nomination process

I think I'm half-way there. Any help would be welcome. See User:Pfctdayelise/test (just the box at the top). Maybe with some tricky substing we can make it even easier... pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yay. I completed this and then was even bold and implemented it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Quality Images - suggestions requested

to add "high encyclopedic value"? --Luc Viatour 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I have now included "high encyclopedic value" as one of the reasons for nomination/promotion Gnangarra 12:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! One would not have to withdraw the pictures of more than 15 days?
No worries. I thought a time limit unnecessary as all images would be considered and be either promoted or declined. Without a time limit the need for someone to do house keeping on the nominations is eliminated. Gnangarra 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a "high encyclopedic value" category as well? perhaps that needs to be hi-lited once QI status has been awarded. I'd even suggest a special barnstar or banner or even nomination process for that. Jnpet 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

What I would like is suggestions on developing the processes and the pages with the ultimate aim of getting them into general usage on commons. plaese leave page specific comments on the individual pages and concept specific comment here Gnangarra 00:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A concept question, would promoting a flawed image to the technical section as a sample of say over exposure be appropriate Gnangarra 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now taking nominations

Commons:Quality Images have commenced reviewing images, please put any nominations at Commons:Quality images candidates... ..Gnangarra 07:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested new requirement for SVG FPs

Please see Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Suggested_requirement:_SVGs_should_pass_validation (and comment there). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Quality and numbers of FP nominations

It may just be an impression, but I get the feeling that this year we aren't keeping up with the one FP per day we need to avoid having to use unfeatured pictures as POTD (I know we can do that, but it's better if we can use only FPs). We need (1) more nominations and (2) better quality nominations. There are at present too few, and many nominators don't seem to be able to read the guidelines! Any ideas as to what to do? Do we have any stats? --MichaelMaggs 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of pictures of my own which I think will make good FP candidates. I didn't want to swamp the procedure with a dozen or so requests from myself, as that didn't seem right for some reason. As it stands, my success rate with FP seems to be about 50%, sometimes because not enough people voted. It's impossible to tell if the crowd is going to like it or not ahead of time. Looking at some of the old FPs, it is clear to me that the standards have also gotten tighter, decreasing the number of featured pictures. -- Ram-Man 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a suggestion as well. Of all of the current requests, about 20 total votes seems to be the upper limit. Usually a picture that has 4 to 6 oppose votes has no chance of success, yet it has to stick around cluttering the page for the full two weeks. Take this request which has 3 support and 4 oppose votes. It is extremely unlikely that it will succeed, yet it will clutter the page for quite some time. I think perhaps if the "7 day rule" was partially amended to allow them to be closed when the result seems obvious, then participation may increase. I also think that images like this one should be promoted after 7 days (or sooner) because it's obvious it will succeed. Images that have, say, 5 oppose votes and only support from the nominator or author should be closed without waiting at all. -- Ram-Man 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your proposal dealt mainly with promoting early. If we had that problem in excess, we'd be happy to have so many good photos. The problem tends to be images that have no chance of success when 7 days is just too much. The "Snowball Clause" would seem applicable here, but it would be nice to add it to the guidelines. -- Ram-Man 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is the updated time series of #Candidates vs #FP. After our discussion on this subject, last year, the number of candidates continued to increase steadily while the number of promoted pictures has remained basically constant. This means, IMO, that COM:FPC is now more popular than it was (I want to believe that our contest contributed for that) and also that the general quality of nominated pictures is not improving. I really don't believe that we are significantly more strict than we were, say, six months ago. Our main objective is still, IMO, to draw the attention of more new and talented authors. What about organizing a thematic photo contest before summer? - Alvesgaspar 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The evidence would seem to speak for itself. Maybe my judgment is being clouded by the recent delisting requests. Perhaps they could be included in the graph? Maybe there is not enough data on that. -- Ram-Man 18:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FP by camera

By manufacturer, camera

Manufacturer Camera Count Images
CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD EX-P700 2
CASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD QV-R41 1
CASIO QV-4000 1
Canon Canon DIGITAL IXUS 30 1
Canon Canon DIGITAL IXUS 400 6
Canon Canon DIGITAL IXUS 500 1
Canon Canon DIGITAL IXUS 700 1
Canon Canon DIGITAL IXUS v3 1
Canon Canon EOS-1D Mark II N 1
Canon Canon EOS-1D Mark II 5
Canon Canon EOS 10D 4
Canon Canon EOS 20D 10
Canon Canon EOS 300D DIGITAL 11
Canon Canon EOS 30D 2
Canon Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL 6
Canon Canon EOS 400D DIGITAL 4
Canon Canon EOS 5D 11

Canon Canon EOS D30 3
Canon Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL 13
Canon Canon PowerShot A310 1
Canon Canon PowerShot A40 1
Canon Canon PowerShot A540 1
Canon Canon PowerShot A610 4
Canon Canon PowerShot A70 7
Canon Canon PowerShot A75 2
Canon Canon PowerShot A80 5
Canon Canon PowerShot A95 2
Canon Canon PowerShot G1 2 File:Sake barrels.jpg
Canon Canon PowerShot G2 3
Canon Canon PowerShot G3 6
Canon Canon PowerShot G5 7
Canon Canon PowerShot G6 2
Canon Canon PowerShot Pro1 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S230 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S30 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S330 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S3 IS 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S400 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S60 1
Canon Canon PowerShot S70 1
DSC_Maker DSC 1
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK CX6330 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA 1
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK CX7530 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA 1
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK DX6490 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA 1
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK DX7590 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA 1
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY KODAK Z730 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA 1
Eastman Kodak Company Kodak CLAS Digital Film Scanner / HR200 1
FUJI PHOTO FILM CO., LTD. SP-2000 1
FUJIFILM FinePix2600Zoom 1
FUJIFILM FinePixA204 1
FUJIFILM FinePix E510 2
FUJIFILM FinePix F601 ZOOM 1 File:Peru Machu Picchu Sunset.jpg
FUJIFILM FinePix S304 3
FUJIFILM FinePix S3500 1
FUJIFILM FinePix S5600 1
FUJIFILM FinePix S602 1
Hewlett-Packard HP PhotoSmart C850 (V07.42) 3
KONICA MINOLTA DiMAGE Z3 1
KONICA MINOLTA DiMAGE A200 4
KONICA MINOLTA DiMAGE Z10 1
Konica Minolta Camera, Inc. DiMAGE Z2 2
Minolta Co., Ltd. DiMAGE 7 1
Minolta Co., Ltd. DiMAGE F100 2
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D1H 2
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D1X 2
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D1 1
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D200 4
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D2H 1
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D50 17
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D70s 1
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D70 7
NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D80 5
NIKON E2100 1
NIKON E3100 1
NIKON E3700 1
NIKON E4100 1
NIKON E4300 2
NIKON E4500 1
NIKON E4600 1
NIKON E5200 1
NIKON E5700 1
NIKON E8700 2
NIKON E8800 1
NIKON E950 1
NIKON E990 1
Nikon Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 5000 ED 2
OLYMPUS CORPORATION C5060WZ 1
OLYMPUS CORPORATION C750UZ 4
OLYMPUS CORPORATION C760UZ 1
OLYMPUS CORPORATION C765UZ 1
OLYMPUS CORPORATION C8080WZ 3
OLYMPUS CORPORATION X250,D560Z,C350Z 1
OLYMPUS CORPORATION X300,D565Z,C450Z 2
OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. C70Z,C7000Z 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD C300Z,D550Z 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD C3030Z 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD C4100Z,C4000Z 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD E-10 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD X-2,C-50Z 1
OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD u10D,S300D,u300D 1
PENTAX Corporation PENTAX *ist DS 1
PENTAX Corporation PENTAX K100D 2 File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg
PENTAX Corporation PENTAX Optio WP 1
Panasonic DMC-FZ20 1
Panasonic DMC-FZ30 2
Panasonic DMC-FZ5 2
Panasonic DMC-LX2 1
Panasonic DMC-TZ1 1
RICOH CaplioG3 modelM 3
SAMSUNG TECHWIN CO., LTD Digimax 430 / Kenox D430 1
SEIKO EPSON CORP. L-400 1
SONY DSLR-A100 1
SONY CYBERSHOT 8
SONY DSC-F828 1
SONY DSC-P100 1
SONY DSC-P10 1
SONY DSC-P200 1
SONY DSC-P72 1
SONY DSC-P8 1
SONY DSC-P92 3
SONY DSC-V1 1
SONY DSC-W1 2
SONY DSC-W7 1
Traveler 6MP-9J5 2 File:Rock life.jpg

Unknown/Not a photograph

(521 images)

File:2002-issue Euro cent obverse.jpg File:8403452 36f7580a25 o.jpg File:AsimovOnThrone.png File:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg File:Bnf 20070218.jpg File:EuropeanParliament.jpg File:Floppy disk internal diagram2.svg File:P7032101 small2.jpg File:Petitsaintbernard01.jpeg File:Pyranha Pygocentrus piraya group 1280 boosted.jpg File:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg File:Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg File:Vitrification1.jpg

FP by camera discussion

This is a count of the different FP's, divided by 'Camera model'. The data I used is about 3 weeks old (27 May) so it does not include more recent FP, and it does include some unfeatured pictures. For the curious, 62 Canon EOS, 52 Canon power shots, 10 Canon Digital IXUS, 40 Nikon D, 15 Coolpix, 12 Finepix, various others. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the original metadata for one of those fps listed as camera unknown. Do you know the best way to edit the metadata information so that i can add that into the file? Chris_huhtalk 14:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I normally use exiv2 to extract the metadata from the original files and plug it back into the post processed ones before uploading. Some info may be incorrect as the post processing may have changed some parameters, but I think it's important to know the original parameters as the shot was taken. I highly recommend using it. Dori | Talk 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK i have edited the file and reuploaded it, and i have added it to the By camera list above. Chris_huhtalk 12:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a real dumb subject.
Cameras don't take pictures. Photographers do.
I sometimes get a depressive feeling that most oft the voters engaged in POD are uanble to see the difference between a pizza and a Picasso - and not at all are concerned with the communication potential of the picture, or its content. Not a single photograph from "The Family of Man" might stand a chance of passing the critical/professional sharpnes/nonoise filter of WM voters - which may explain the astonishing number of chilled insects, whith no grain and exellent sharpness - criteria any retarded can observe - and voted as FP. The word composistion has in this context become the most empty word of all.
Can anyone give me an edible explanation of the necessity of this veird ritual?--Frode Inge Helland (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, another Ken Rockwell fan. Yes there is a simple explanation. We are not here to create art, we are here to create documentary photography that is educationally useful. Being able to clearly see the depicted subject is more essential than "soul" or any other of that artsy fartsy stuff. --Dschwen (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The FP by camera is still a dumb and highly irrelevant subject - even for "educational useful pictures".--80.213.0.191 14:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So is your comment. Zing! --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
On a more serious note, the category poses no harm whatsoever, and people might find it useful when it comes to finding example images for specific camera models. --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? May be you can tell me which cameras which are unsuited to specific pictures - it should be evident in the present material.--Frode Inge Helland (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, you apparently do not want to understand or are on some dogmatic mission here. Nobody is talking about cameras being unsuitable, so get off your hobby horse and please read what I wrote. --Dschwen (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have found those categories useful, and would object to their removal. --99of9 (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Both these and are tagged as featured. Any objections if I delete the featured tag from the 2nd one? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

FP wallpaper

Be aware that we now have Category:Commons featured desktop backgrounds and Category:Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds for those who are interested. Please help change it to give it a Commons feel so it doesn't look exactly like Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds :). --Digon3 talk 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A forgotten list

Commons:Featured pictures candidates/candidate list Rocket000 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

FPX

Can I please ask everyone to be a little more polite when using this? There's one up at the moment where it reads " Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of very poor image quality" - That's an excellent way to make photographers feel attacked and unwanted on the project. Use FPX for size issues, but for any other purpose, the FPX tag can all too easily be far, far too blunt. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I make a mistake

Hi everyone, I have nominated a picture today, and followed the instructions that's to say, insert the text {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:MSX cartridge macro.jpg}} at the top of the list, created the page and perform the first vote for it, and finally purge the cache. Yet the text does appear but not the pic, and it stands at the top of the article. Can someone more experienced than me with this page tell me what I did did wrong and correct it 'cause I fear to do a stupid thing... Metalheart (have a talk) 12:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I fix it: [1]. Regards, Otourly (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thx a lot. I tried to fix it at the same time and I hope I didn't make any other mistake. But what is strange to me is that on this page the picture is a second rank paragraph instead of a third rank one. Metalheart (have a talk) 13:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
The same problem (see below) and no one answer - whats wrong and how to fix. Very strange template... --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to suggest the file File:Cannon fire.JPG

But my English and experience in commons don't allow me to do it. can someone help me? 93.173.190.94 17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since one file has so far received a positive response, I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to nominate the other (related) pictures in Category:Extermination of Evil which are of comparable technical quality. Is there a way to nominate the whole set of pictures? Is there something like "featured picture sets"? bamse (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Emil Hegle Svendsen Kontiolahti 2010.jpg

I am tried to add image, but I can't understand what I doing wrong - image is not appear. I found tree same questions here, but no one answer, only "Ok, I fixed it". Please explain - whats wrong and how you fixing it? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, new nominations go on top of this list. Not the bottom. Edit this page and add the title of the nomination page inside brackets like this: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example.jpg}} on the top of the list. What you typed here should go in the nomination page. ZooFari 23:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, can't understand what's wrong. Did all by instructions. Why the string with my text appeared on the top of the page? --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Just deleted {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Emil Hegle Svendsen Kontiolahti 2010.jpg}} string and added photo manually. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Replacing a FP by a better one

I have reverted what looks to me as a bad attempt to replace this FP by a non-FP one which looks clearly better: File:Solvay conference 1927 Version2.jpg. What is the best way to achieve this:

  • overwrite the former picture with the latter? I doubt it. And that should have been done earlier.
  • delist the former and nominate the latter at the same time?
  • let the latter picture automatically inherit the FP status of the former one?
  • anything else?

Thanks for your answer. — Xavier, 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Aix en Othe Baltard.jpg

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aix en Othe Baltard.jpg : I can't put this file. Thanks for help. Sincerely Mike Coppolano (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be a tricky process. I have only put up two and both went down in flames. One was my image that was low QI so I withdrew it. The other had too many oppose votes for moral and legal reasons. I had fixed the legal issues but the legal opposers didn't revert their votes. I would like to help you post it or post it for you myself, but I am a little pissed off at the FP process right now, sorry.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. It doesn't matter. Thanks Mike Coppolano (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

FP set

How are Featured Pictures Sets considered? Are the single pictures also cosidered as FP?

Why does not work ?

First time user of FP nomination. I followed the instruction and added {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Five Pavilion bridge.jpg}} to Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. I don't know why it does not work. Please help--Gisling (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC).

You missed to create the nomination page. Go to Commons:Featured picture candidates and follow the instructions in "Adding a new nomination" section. --A.Savin 21:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Savin--Gisling (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC).

SVG candidate guidelines reform

Please see the discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#SVG candidate guidelines reform ! Thanks! —Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why if I nominate a Featured pictures set the link to the nomination page don't appear in the list? What's wrong? --Dvdgmz (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

By now I linked it manually. --Dvdgmz (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_candidate_list&oldid=708246126"