Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured picture candidates.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
candidate list

Proposal to have icons on the top right of files that became POTY finalists and winners

Dear FPC users,

As you all know some featured pictures eventually end up being a Picture of the Year finalist or winner. A proposal has been made on this page to add an icon on the top right of each file page that was assessed POTY winner or finalist, like it's already the case for Featured pictures , Valued images , Quality Images , Wiki Loves Earth winners and Wiki Loves Monuments winners .

So feel free to leave a vote (red or green) on this page in order to see if there is a consensus to implement this proposal.

Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day -- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support I like the idea Wilfredor (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Thank you for your vote but I think all votes should be posted at the same place which is : on this page (click here). So I would be grateful if you could also post your vote there! Thank you in advance and have a beautiful day! -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

How many active delists by the same user should be allowed?

This question pops up once and again, so it seems the current wording of the rules is not sufficient and should be amended by an explicit sentence stating how many active delists by the same user should be allowed. An amendment of the rules requires a general discussion, hence belongs to this talk page. Because this time the discussion has started apropos of this delist nomination, I copy the comments from that discussions to this place. Please allow me to ping the same users again in order to hin them at this general discussion: A.Savin, Basile Morin, Charlesjsharp, Rhododendrites, W.carter and everybody else, please continue the discussion here. – Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment @Aristeas: this is not exactly a nomination. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:DA2:DE21:DDC8:DCF1 04:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment We often say that images are “nominated for delisting” and AFAICR apply the “only two nominations” limit also to delist nominations. However I would be happy to learn that I am wrong.

Asking some users which were especially interested in rule discussions in the past – @A.Savin, Basile Morin, Charlesjsharp, Rhododendrites, W.carter – and everybody else with FPC experience: Would you say that the “only two active nominations by the same user” limit applies also to delist nominations (as I have assumed here) or would you say that one can nominate as many images for delisting as one wants?

I would argue that the limit should also apply to delist nominations.

• Formal argument: the rules say “The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period”, so if not stated differently the two nominations limit should also apply to delist nominations.
• Material argument: In past discussions the limit has often been justified by emphasizing (1) that nominations must be discussed carefully (we want quality, not quantity); and (2) that the FP maintenance resources are very limited. IMHO both points apply even a fortiori to delist nominations: (1) they certainly need an especially careful discussion (we all want to avoid arbitrary delisting) and (2) they mean even more work for us maintainers than normal nominations – delisting a FP always requires misc. manual edits.

How do you see this? Thank you very much for your statements! Best, – Aristeas (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• As I recall we've had a few discussions about how many delists should be allowed and always come back to the "Delists are the same as normal nominations". Mostly for the reasons that people have such mixed feelings about having delists at all, and that there is so much work in closing them and only a few users know how to do it properly, since it's all done manually.

But since this question pops up from time to time, perhaps we should add a word or two to the rules to clarify this. Such discussions belong on the FPC talk page, not on a nom since it requires input from the community. I suggest you copy these comments to that page and let the discussion continue there. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Looking more closely at the rules on COM:FPC I can see that the two-delist-rule is already in the delist rules: "There is a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.". But it is tacked on to the end of the general "talk" so it's easy to overlook. I think that the best thing would be to just move that sentence up and make it the #5 rule for clarity, and just re-write it in a more rule-like language that is consistent with #11 of the normal noms: "Only two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." --Cart (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment That would be a perfect solution. – Aristeas (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this makes a lot of sense. Kritzolina (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Ok, I've moved it. Thanks for the feedback. --Cart (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Aristeas: for the notification. In my view, only 2 nominations (delist / delist and replace / standard candidatures or sets) would be fine. Instead of the current rule allowing 2 + 2, only 2 maximum (in total) should be enough. Just my two cents on this matter, I won't be available to argue more -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Changing the wording on formats?

When you create an FP nomination, you get prompted to select a format for your nomination:

• "landscape <!--change to portrait (<0.8), panorama (2.0-4.0), widepano (>4.0), or square (0.8-1.25) if appropriate-->".

Over the years this has been a source of confusion for nominators who don't know the proper English names for the different formats; it still is. Even seasoned nominators get this wrong and select "landscape" for any photo depicting a landscape and "portrait" for photos of people, regardless of the image's format. The size of the image on the nom page is usually corrected by one of the maintainers, but I think it would be better to if we changed the wording so that the formats are easier to understand. I suggest we use the format words used on Wikis that are less ambiguous, plus skip the confusing numbers and rearrange a bit. Something like:

• "horizontal <!--change to upright, square, panorama, or widepanorama, if appropriate-->".

What do you think? --Cart (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support as someone who correct many nominations. Yann (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Support as someone who needed someone to correct a nomination --Kritzolina (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed Hopefully I didn't forget any step with the code. Please let me know if something is wonky. --Cart (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Add vertorama. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catch. Added as 'verticalpanorama' since the term 'vertorama' is not widely used and the instructions should be easy to understand even to people who are not familiar with photography lingo. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Can we use the old ones? Because "upright" sounds wrong; that's usually substantially smaller than portrait on-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

But that is exactly the term that is most confusing to commoners not familiar with English photo lingo Kritzolina (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Adam, like Kritzolina says, the "portrait" is the term causing the most trouble since this is a multi-language site, and people take it literally. Most folks think it refers to the content of the image, not the format. "Upright" is the term used in the wiki-code for images in "portrait" orientation, so it's the one that most users are familiar with. And no, "upright" does not make make an image smaller than "portrait" on-wiki. Using "upright" in an image code identifies the image as having that format (upright/portrait) and makes it about the same area as an image with "horizontal/landscape". An image should take up roughly the same space in an article, regardless of the orientation it has, unless there is a special reason for displaying an image smaller or bigger than normal thumb. However, if you use "upright" on an image that has "horizontal" orientation, it will of course become small. See examples below.

There is also the possibility that you have used "portrait" in the wiki-code... Since it is not a term recognized by the wiki-code, it will be simply be ignored, and the image will be displayed with the width of a "landscape/horizontal" image. That might be why you perceive that term to yield larger images. See examples below.

But, since I understand that it might be hard for longtime users to break with old habits, I have re-written the the code to accept the old terms "portrait" and "landscape" too, even if they are not written as examples in the instructions. So you can continue with the words you are used to. --Cart (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I meant more that "upright" is used on the non-commons wikis to shrink an image to 70% of the width of a basic thumbnail - which isn't what it's doing here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Examples:

Code for horizontal orientation: [[File:G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 22.jpg|thumb|]] gives you: A normal thumb-sized horizontal/landscape image Code for upright orientation: [[File:G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 27.jpg|thumb|upright]] gives you: A normal thumb-sized upright/portrait image Code for horizontal orientation on an upright image: [[File:G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 27.jpg|thumb|]] gives you: A too large upright/portrait thumb-sized image Code for upright orientation on a horizontal image: [[File:G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 22.jpg|thumb|upright]] gives you: A too small thumb-sized horizontal/landscape image Using the word "portrait" in the code of an upright image: [[File:G5 aurora over Tuntorp, Lysekil Municipality 27.jpg|thumb|portrait]] gives you: A too large upright/portrait thumb-sized image, since the word "portrait" is simply ignored in the code

How is result determined?

As I'm quite new to FP, can someone explain how the result is determined? About my image (File:View across Slok reservoir to Belchatow power plant 4.jpg), it had 5 supporting and 2 opposing votes. Why exactly was it "not featured"? Guidelines say:

If an image is listed here for ten days [✓] with five or more reviewers in support [✓] and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-thirds majority in support [✓, 5 of 7 is more than two thirds].

There are also other images with 5/1 votes etc. that were declined. Have the rules changed? Or do I understand something wrong? Plozessor (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Plozessor: I think you are quoting from the English Wikipedia's FPC process? (en:WP:FPC). The process is similar here, but we have much more participation so the minimum number of supports is 7. The two-thirds rule still applies, and is firm (no "generally regarded"). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, you have read the rules on the English Wikipedia. Wikipedias in different languages have their own rules for FPs on their sites. Some Wikis just "borrow" their FPs from Commons, but some have their own assaments. Here on Commons the rules are a bit different with regards to number of votes and days. You can read the full Commons rules on COM:FPC#General rules. --Cart (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Ahhhh y, I read those before but somehow missed the relevant part. Thx! Plozessor (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)