Commons talk:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 168: Line 168:


If some users find this rule change as a "hole" in the rules for users to nominate more images.. which means that the problem is the limit of 2 images per nomination.. then a new proposal for rule change can be made in order the number of active nominations to be i.e. 3 or 4. [[User:Ggia|Ggia]] ([[User talk:Ggia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If some users find this rule change as a "hole" in the rules for users to nominate more images.. which means that the problem is the limit of 2 images per nomination.. then a new proposal for rule change can be made in order the number of active nominations to be i.e. 3 or 4. [[User:Ggia|Ggia]] ([[User talk:Ggia|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
:Correct, but for me it seems rather unlikely that this is really a problem. In the end only one of several alternatives can be promoted, and as noted above there is always a risk involed introducing alternatives because support votes tend to be dispersed among them and there may be more oppose votes on versions the individual reviewer does not like. This leads most often to a general lower chance of promotion of ''any'' version. --[[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:31, 4 November 2010

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Proposal to change the rule #12

For the last few days a few users expressed the wish to allow the nominators to nominate alternatives even if those are different images of the same subject. That's why I'd like to propose to change the rule #12 like this:In addition to an original image a nomination might contain up to 2 alternatives. The original image and the alternatives, if any, have to be images of the same subject.

Example

Please take a look at this nomination and at this nomination. They both have alternatives, but the first nomination is in violation of the rule #12 as it is written now because the alternative 1 is a different image, taken 6 minutes after the original. The second nomination is not in violation of any rules because the alternative is a different version of absolutely the same image. Under new rules both nominations will be OK, and only one image, if any, of those nominations will get promoted.

Supports

  1. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ggia (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In such situations as here and here, everyone will have different opinions on which is best, so it is best to select it by discussion. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree. It like to nominations FPC in English Wikipedia with alternatives. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. Let's not make it impossible for nominators to put up images. We don't need rules for everything. --Muhammad (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree, but... From my point of view this is one of very low important rules here. If image is really good, it is voted by poeple very easyly by high number of participants. If there is "something" with it, the nomination of alternative image helps only in minimum cases. And I agree with Muhammad Mahdi Karim: We don't need rules for everything. --Karelj (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. 99of9 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree. It will enrich the discussion and add new perspectives. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. For me this makes perfect sense. For me part of the review process is to react on the feedback in the review, and if the response indicates that another photo of the same subject in the creators personal archive taken a little sooner or later could better address the points raised by the reviewers, I can only see that as beneficial for the objective of promoting the best possible pictures. It is not without risk to nominate an alternative. It is well known that some reviewers will prefer the new version and oppose the original, leading to a spread of votes and a larger risk of none of them being promoted. I realize that some creators are better at finding the optimal nomination initially. It depends on the person, and if alternatives works better for others, I do not see why not. Having said that I sometimes see that some creators seem very eager to shoot, upload and nominate without really doing their homework first and scrutinize the photo for defects, check that criteria are met etc. Whereas this is understandable for new users on FPC, some "veteran" nominators could frequently do better on this aspect and thereby save some time for the reviewers in the review process. --Slaunger (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposes

  1. As before. In my opinion it is the responsability of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to make the best choice among the available images of a certain subject. Furthermore, I don't believe it is possible to write a consensual definition of "same subject" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think a black and white line is really necessary. If the images are so different that they are not of the same subject, the nominator is shooting themselves in the foot, because if nominated separately they might have both become FP. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Always the same people who want to avoid or circumvent rules to their own advantage. Just accept what we have agreed on. Lycaon (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my own advantage? I have only added another version of a picture once to twice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way that you write this seems like having something personal with some users. I support the idea but I never used alternative versions. What do you mean "own advantage". If somebody has the lot of featured pictures here wins something?, ie. earns some money? Ggia (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't make this discussion of a rule change personal. Your opposing statement tars every supporter with the same brush. --99of9 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who are the "always the same people?" Name names, provide evidence. The actual rules replaced older rules, and it was done via consensus, but the consensus was not to cast the new rules in stone... and just as the new rules were brought upon as an improvement, new contributions to existing rules is an improvement on an improvement... it is called evolution... and this particular proposal makes sense, because it allows for more flexibility and invites photographic dialogue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I say the rule should be about categories in which an image will appear once featured. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand what you mean, and how it relates to the proposal. Could you please clarify it in Comments section? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been discussed in the New rules section; FPCs fall into specific categories, like objects/vehicles, so: one image per category at a time. If more clarification is needes, I will do it below. Wolf (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wolf, a new proposal has nothing to do with this. I believe my English is not good enough to formulate the proposal better, but please let me try to do it one more time: Of course only one image from all alternatives will be promoted. Please see section Example I just added. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. a FP image should stand out clearly without variation, there are always alternatives but you should choose a picture, otherwise the impression that you want to force a FP, that's not good. l.g. sorry for my english --Böhringer (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 08:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrals

Comments

Let say that a user propose 2 alternative versions and both of them have the same number of votes (positive-negative) and the ratio between positive/negative votes is good enough for the images to be featured.. which image will be featured? I suppose that talking about alternative versions we mean that in the end one of them will be featured.. Ggia (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course only one image might be featured. If the ratio of the votes are the same, It should work as that: If an original has the same ratio as any alternative does, an original is featured. If alt 1 and alt 2 or alt 3 have the same ratio,then alt 1 should be featured, and so on. Why? Because a nominator usually nominates the images in the order he/she likes them best.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- The text is ambiguous. Same subject may have different meanings. Are the "same river" or the "same biological species" or "the same tunnel" or the "same person", shot at the same or different times, considered the same subject? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, yes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
for example let say that you make a portrait of a human. ie your photo [1], alternative versions will be other photos that girl with different expressions.. It is normal for a photographer to make 10 photos of a portrait.. then (s)he finds 2 of them interesting.. but (s)he is not sure which one likes more.. I think it is normal to nominate them as alternative versions.. You are right that this text is ambiguous.. but we can all use common sense.. I can give more examples if you like.. Ggia (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

derivative works - alternative versions

I have the following question. When we see an Image as feature picture candidate (or generally speaking in commons) and we want to enhance it (ie. correct brightness, remove noise, tilt etc..), shall we upload it as a new version (derivative work) or we just update the original file?

i.e. here [2] Mbz1 uploaded [3] as a derivative work.. Later if you see the history file of [4] I updated the original file with the (alternative) version of Mbz1.

i.e. here [5] me (ggia) uploaded [6].. when I asked [7] a permission to update the image Alvesgspa said to upload new version [8].

i.e. here [9] I corrected the tilt and I directly updated the old version of the image without asking permission [10].

I believe (and we can discuss it).. that a new version of an image that has technical improvements should be an update to the original image. If the owner or the community doesn't like it.. there is always the option to return to the original version (the old file is in the history, it is not removed).

In cases that some creative crop or creating a new work (ie. combing a set of images), there a new version should be uploaded separately. I think that in cases that a user tries to correct some technical problems.. the image should be directly updated..

Using a retouched version of an image as alternative option for voting.. looks a little strange.. i.e. here [11] both versions are almost identical.. It will be strange situation for one picture to receive 5 votes.. and the other 4 votes (by different users) and not to be promoted as feature picture.

Ggia (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello.
  • I have to say that I dislike "alternative versions" in FPC. IMO, it is the responsibility of the nominator to chose the version he wants, not the reviewers (agree with Alvesgaspar here). Furthermore, I think that the nominator has to chose only one, without alternative in the same nomination.
  • Alternatives by others : If I chose a black background for a masking, it is my choice. I disagree to see near my nomination a thumb with a white background ! In these cases I don't understand for what we are voting. "Support this one, decline this one, prefer this one etc" (agree with Ggia just above).
  • One can suggests improvements, or make comments, or support or decline, the nominator can ask for help or advices, but that is the only things acceptable in FPC nominations page, no uploading nor showing other versions.
  • Everybody is free to change or re-work my own pictures, but not to nominate in FPC the "new" version, even "improved" (Remember the chalice ?) as an alternative version during the voting period IMO.
  • Once or twice, sometimes, I've corrected the perspective, a tilt or minor issues for other users. As it was fundamentally the same picture, I uploaded it over the original version in the file page, but reverted immediately to this previous version, with a message to the author, because I think he is free to use it or not.
  • The community rejected recently one of my nomination (in QIC) of a bust of Pompey, because of too soft masking. I re-worked the pic, and submitted another version, after withdrawing my first nomination. Now the new version (promoted at the end in QIC) will maybe be rejected here in FPC because of a too strict cut off. That is MY problem. If rejected by the community, the community is right, and I'm wrong. I'll wait until the end of the voting period, re-re-work my pic, and maybe (not sure) submit a new nomination. But I surely would not like to see now, in FPC nominations page, near my work, an "alternative version".
  • One nomination means One photo. No exceptions. Only words as comments.

Thank you for reading this, sorry for my english.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change of the background of an object (from black -> white) it is is not a technical improvement of an image.. but a new creative derivative work. For exammple masking the sky or other parts in order to have more vidid colors, correct the tilt.. or generally make the image look a little better.. for me it is not derivative version or alternative version.. but it should be uploaded/updated in in original image. Ggia (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As all know, I'm against presenting various pictures of the same subject in the same nomination. I also agree with Jebulon that improved versions of a picture should be presented only by the nominator (after a suggestion, for example). That is a question of courtesy. But I'm not against showing more than one version of a picture in a nomination, as a response to suggestions made by the reviewers. This is better than replacing the original because it is possible to put them side by side and make an objective comparison. In the end, all spurious versions should be deleted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Alvesgaspar that it can be useful to add new versions in response to reviewer's suggestions. There is also one particular situation where I find uploading over the top of an existing nomination to be very inconvenient. This is when a reviewer has made annotations as part of their review, and in addressing them, the nominator uploads a file with a different resolution (e.g. due to a different crop or restitching, as in this nomination after Sting's comments). Then the annotations are no longer visible, so it is difficult for other reviewers to follow the first reviewer's comments. --Avenue (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version of File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg which fixes the issues raised in the previous candidacy. How can I nominate it again? bamse (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need help !!

I've made a mistake in the "delisting section" because of my misunderstanding of the process, and I don't know how to correct. Can somebody help ? Thank you and sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell is what and were the mistake is? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same or a different image?

Please take a look at the alternative version in this FPC nomination. IMO, and according to Rule 12, it is a different image and should not be nominated as an alternative. The considerations made by Ggia about the original being a cropped version of the alternative is not convincing. Thougths? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important is to finalize the previous discussion Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal_to_change_the_rule_#12 and not to start a long discussion about this specific example.
Let's say that you are right and the alternative image is removed. Soon Mbz1 can nominate it as a new nomination. All these discussions seems that we don't like photos by users to get FP status. Our goal here is to have more FP as we can get.. not building walls using the rules in order to stop users to nominate more high quality images.. If a user likes his/her photos (that are high quality technically - aesthetically) to get FP status we have to give congratulations to him.. (a FP status is a kind of reward by the community).. We have to make users to upload more and more high quality photos under open license (ie. creative commons license 3.0 sa).. not to build walls using the rules. Ggia (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A basis for a civilized discussion is being polite (it is also a rule). Please explain us what do you mean by "Please spare all us of the rethoric"? Ggia (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ggia, for stating your opinion. That post actually has nothing to do with the image at all. It is not about image, it is about retaliating to me personally for this. The image was nominated on October 18 and nobody complained about this up to now, October 22, (for more than 4 days), but today the time came for retaliations. You see, Ggia there most editors come here to evaluate images, but a few trolls come here to retaliate to a photographer they do not like. Here's a great example of what I am talking about. It was said about the image supported by 17 editors and opposed only by three trolls. So please do let it go, as I let it go. Trust me on this, it will be safer for you. I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you never stop evaluating other people by your own standards? Will you never stop spilling your venon? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize if my comments seemed unpolite. But yours weren't very constructive either. We all know that the agreed rules have to be applied (as fast as possible) while a new concensus is not reached, which is the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info -- As no further comments were made on this specific case, the nomination was closed in accordance with the present rules. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, one of the interested parties (Mbz1) removed the template twice. I refuse to participate in an edit war though the rules fully support the use of the template and no further arguments applying to this specific nomination were presented (other than the one by Jebulon, in the nomination page, who supports it). This was a trolling action which seriously disrupts the normal functioning of the FPC forum. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is silly to close with an FPD when the nomination has run so long. Alvesgaspar, please refrain since you are clearly in conflict with Mbz1 at the moment, and are thus an involved party. --99of9 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- Before I address the main subject, let me clarify something: I was not in conflict with Mbz1 at the time I noticed the problem and wrote the first comment in the nomination section. Memory is short and people may have forgotten that I was involved, in a consistent way, in the recent attempts to unblock her. Maybe a visit to Mbz1’s archives will help to refresh our little grey cells! So, my warning left at the FP nomination was not a consequence of my conflict with her, it was the cause! Second: we are all volunteers here and the maintenance work is not properly organized. That explains why some problems related to nominated pictures run unnoticed for some time. It has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. I’m no inspector here and cannot be blamed for not noticing this specific problem before; neither can I be blamed for trying to enforce the rules only four days after the nomination was made. Is it really silly to close a nomination which does not comply with the agreed rules some time after it was made? Please think carefully. If that is indeed the consensus of the community maybe we should reflect it on the rules! I will comment no more on this issue but sincerely expect that a reasonable decision is made. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS - After Mbz1 called me a liar in her talk page, I have to admit that when the above comment was written another conflict was already going on, related to this nomination. I apologize for not having been accurate. However, the accusation that my action was a retaliation is outrageous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was retaliation, just that you are too involved at the moment to take this kind of action. If someone else wants to take action, I suggest that they strike through the alternative, since it's only the second image that exceeds the current limits.99of9 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Should we have a welcome template for the newbies on FPC? Something like:

Welcome to the FPC project! Here, we nominate files to become featured pictures. Please read the image guidelines carefully before reviewing and nominating. If you have any questions, you can take them to the project's talk page. Again, welcome! ~~~~

this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading edits directly over existing image pages?

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_Nightscream_-_uploading_edited_images_over_pre-existing_image_pages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is broken here...

... when Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarychev Peak.jpg gets featured. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Avenue's version is better and its size is similar to that of the source file. It appears that most reviewers did not have an opportunity to evaluate Avenue's version. It may be helpful to add an admonition to the FPC criteria to avoid increasing the file size significantly when editing the file. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing General Rule 12

When Alvesgaspar wants to make a change, no consensus is needed. even when it's part of a campaign of harassment against Mbz which has very nearly got him banned from interacting with her.

When a majority vote against his recent change, suddenly a majority is not enough to overturn his no-consensus change to the rules.

86.132.7.73 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, is that you Adam? --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, dear anonymous, I think the whole problem is that the proposal to change rule #12 was never closed and thus not formally adopted. I agree that currently it has a majority of 8 for changing the rule and 6 against, and so it seems to point in the direction of a change of rule #12. It would of course be better is such a rule change could be reached by consensus than by simple vote counting, especially when the number of votes is so low, and the difference between supports and opposes is so close. I would therefore tend to agree that currently there is no clear consensus for a change of the rule. I will now go up and vote as well, thereby adding to the statistics as I have now carefully considered the pros and cons and made up my mind. I do not think that the bringing up of the underlying intentions for doing this and that edit is particularly constructive. We are trying to look ahead and the relations between mbz1 and Alves seem for me to have improved. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus for the "clarify" edits either.[12] It seems wise to me to not make that change without first seeking a consensus through discussion. If I may make a general observation: when making a substantive change to criteria, it is helpful to provide an edit summary that describes the substance of that change. Doing so makes it easier to trace the history of a particular provision. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your observation regarding this particular edit and your general recommendation to provide an edit summary referring to the discussion leading to the "clarification". --Slaunger (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most fair thing currently would be to roll back the rules to the Sep 19 revision just prior to the discussed edit by Alves, wait for a proper closure of the proposal to change rule 12, and then implement needed changes if relevant. That would be fair and unbiased IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some users find this rule change as a "hole" in the rules for users to nominate more images.. which means that the problem is the limit of 2 images per nomination.. then a new proposal for rule change can be made in order the number of active nominations to be i.e. 3 or 4. Ggia (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but for me it seems rather unlikely that this is really a problem. In the end only one of several alternatives can be promoted, and as noted above there is always a risk involed introducing alternatives because support votes tend to be dispersed among them and there may be more oppose votes on versions the individual reviewer does not like. This leads most often to a general lower chance of promotion of any version. --Slaunger (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=45749763"