Commons talk:Featured pictures/Archive 1

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

Is there any reason not to start a mass transfer of Featured Pictures from, say, en:Wikipedia:Featured Pictures? The FP criteria for the English wikipedia include free-as-in-speech, so that should not be an obstacle. I don't envision doing this with a bot; there aren't *that* many pictures (and it gives me an excuse to look at them all again). But it seems like all those pictures are worth spreading around... On the other hand, it sets the bar for Commons featured pictures rather high. Thoughts? --Andrew 23:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, simply transfer them to Commons or make the featured as well? For the first of course this should be done, the second is maybe not so good. I saw en featured fail in de and the other way round, and thats only the two lists I'm watching. -guety 23:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS.: Why do you think the bar is set high on commons?
What I meant was, the featured pictures on en are very good, and so putting them here would raise the bar here quite high (not that the pictures here aren't good). Anyway, as I say below, the whole question was based on a misunderstanding on my part. --Andrew 06:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They should certainly all be uploaded on commons (presuming they are under free licenses - this is a requirement for en featured pictures, but I don't know about other languages). However, they should be re-nominated for featured picture status here, for the reasons Guety stated. — Dan | Talk 00:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do we actually have a nomination process here yet? If not, they could be put in Featured directly and then cycled through the process once we get one. --Andrew 06:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A nomination process is described in the article related to this very talk page, Commons:Featured pictures. Have a look at Commons:Featured pictures candidates to see the process. I don't see why we should take for granted that English FP would certainly be FP here in the Commons. Commons community is different, thanks to a strong multilingualism. villy 08:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel foolish. Of course you're right; there is no reason they should be featured here automatically. Most of them will probably be featured eventually, just because they really are very nice, but they should go through the process like any other picture. I had become confused and thought that the Commons had not yet set up a FPC process (perhaps I was thinking of the picture of the day). --Andrew 06:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All featured files from en are now on Commons. --Saperaud 22:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Subpages instead of templates

I notice this page uses a lot of Template namespace pages. For example, Template:Featured pictures, list, which links to Template:Featured pictures/Animals. I suggest these should be Commons namespace pages. They aren't really used as templates at all, except that Template:Featured pictures, list is included from the various translations of COM:FP. Any objections to moving these pages to the Commons namespace? User:dbenbenn 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No objection. Can't really remember why I choose templates in the first place ... villy ♦✎ 03:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. Next step is to do the same thing with Commons:Featured picture candidates and Commons:Picture of the day ... User:dbenbenn 00:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

On February 4, 2005, User:MarkSweep created Template:Featured picture, then tagged 36 featured pictures from the English Wikipedia. These pictures were apparently never nominated at Commons:Featured picture candidates. Shall they remain featured? I expect most or all of them would pass FPC if nominated; is it worth the bother to put them through the formal nomination process? User:dbenbenn 21:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would go for either renominating them or tagging them as "featured on en" (or maybe both). There is also an ongoing discussion on this. But it clearly can't stay like this until a common solution for all featured pictures from all wikipedias has been found -- Gorgo 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I just realised that none of these pictures where ever featured anywhere (I thought before that were fp from en). I left him a note on his user page, but I guess we have to remove the fp-status of these pictures completely. -- Gorgo 23:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Nuh-huh, they were nominated and went through the regular process. But, you may recall that before March of last year, the FPC pages were organized differently. A record of the nominations can be found on Template:Featured pictures candidates, list. Check the history. --MarkSweep 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have looked in the history. Can you point out where, for example, Image:Sake barrels.jpg was ever nominated? You tagged it as a featured picture on February 5, 2005, but the February 3, 2005 version of Template:Featured pictures candidates, list doesn't list it. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place? User:dbenbenn 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I tagged every image that was listed on the February 4, 2005 revision of Commons:Featured pictures, list. The sake barrels picture received its featured status in November 2004. [1] [2] --MarkSweep 06:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for solving that problem, I'm probably going to create an archive page for these pictures so the nomination is nicely traceable. -- Gorgo 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I created logfiles for November 2004 - February 2005 out of the history so there should be a link to the nomination on every featured picture candidate page now, like it's supposed to be. I hope I didn't miss any. -- Gorgo 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RSS feed

Is there any way to get an RSS feed of this page?

-biggins

I also would like to know this... feed for all FPs would be nice. However, you definitely can get a feed for particular FP pages as an article history.--Kozuch (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jury

Who is the jury for new featured pictures? I would like to suggest this one: church in East Frisia, Germany. -- Simplicius 10:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of QI & FP tags?

(Also posted to Commons talk:Quality Images) Image:Il Vittoriano (particolare)14 11.jpg and Image:Il Vittoriano (particolare 2).jpg are tagged as quality image and featured picture, but I see no links to the evaluation pages of either group and it appears it was never submitted. Also added to Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Places by author. Anyone else care to check this. If I'm right, should anything be done apart from removing the tags? --Tony Wills 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Image:Palatino (Giardini Palatini dei Farnesi).jpg, Image:Arco di Costantino (particolare).jpg. looks to me like a misunderstanding of the tag usage. --Tony Wills 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1000FP

Hello,

Something interesting is coming up. It's still a few months away, but soon Commons will have one thousand Featured Pictures. That's pretty special, isn't it? :)

I just checked a couple of minutes ago and we have 816. So what kind of things could we do to celebrate having 1000 FPs? My ideas below. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • press release, obviously :)
  • organise some kind of prize for the winning photograph/er? (maybe not that appropriate, also problematic if it's like a NASA photo)
  • organise a lucky-draw prize kind of thing for Wikimedia editors who have contributed a FP? (their own work) then one FP = one entry in the "barrel" (maybe the Foundation offices would hold/draw an actual barrel for us! :)) something like this would be good to publicise now, so people who want to be considered still have lots of time to nominate FPs. and plus organise prizes of course. [does this idea make sense? I kinda like it :)]
  • organise some kind of commemmorative printed effort? /me looks at blurb.com longingly... we could print all the FPs, the Foundation could get some copies for promotional use, photographers could order themselves a copy to feel special (guess we'd need Foundation approval for this one - worth pursuing?)
    • This could also be a lucrative way to make some money ;) Lcarsdata 07:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Coffee table book ? Sounds like a good idea. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • possibly better and more realistic idea: we should sell a CD with all the images on it... that is much more do-able and perhaps more desirable too. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well... When I read this suggestion, I didn't think it a bad idea. What we need is someone to layout this thing in InDesign and then sell it through a Print on Demand publisher. It's worth exploring, I think. Do remember coffee table books can be expensive. We'd have to sort by topic, agree on which langues we'd add captions, etc. Think big and anything is possible. CDs are so... predictable! :) Siebrand 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Excactly! also take a look at http://lulu.com/, which seems to offer printing on demand for acceptable prices. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Just a random paragraph from their website: Lulu.com partners with Getty Images to enable Lulu users to enhance their work with licensed photographs of Getty Images, while Lulu protects and compensates the copyright holders. Parts of three extended Getty Images photograph collection — Stockbyte, Digital Vision and Photodisc — will be available for Lulu.com users. Do you smell it too? Siebrand 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • I've been thinking some more about this idea in my car during a traffic jam, and I'm still enthousiastic about it. We simply HAVE TO create out coffee table book Wikimedia Commons Exposed: 1,5 million free images at your fingertips. Siebrand 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Commons:Coffee table book -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ??????
  • Perhaps make a photographic mosaic of the FPs, and sell it as a print and puzzle? -- Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2010 (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 19:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg

That image was voted featured image in 2005. In 2006 a different version was uploaded using the same filename. Now all uses of the image has been replaced by Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg, which is a duplicate of the file from 2006 (but not of the file from 2005). The featuredpicture template has also been moved to the description page of Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg. What image is really the featured picture? Should Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg be reverted to the version from 2005? /81.231.248.85 08:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it has now been reverted (following a deletion/undeletion) and once the current deletion request is cleared it can be renamed. --Tony Wills 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Award for best picture

Hi,
Have you ever thought of handing out an award for the best picture of the year/of all times on commons? You could e.g. only nominate real pictures made by users with an account. It would be really nice, and cool to see the best of the best picture. Newspapers will maybe post the winning pictures, resulting in free publicity for wikipedia.
Richardprins 22:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We have such a competition coming up: Commons:Picture of the Year/2007. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronological glintch?

This image, Image:Four pulleys.svg is a featured picture (with discussion and vote, etc.) and is not in the chronological list. What is the problem? --Berru 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:African penguins.jpg

This image shows up on Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds, but the description page makes no mention of its Featured status. Anrie 14:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The nomination is here. It was also nominated for removing from FP, the decision was to keep it. So i think it should get the FP status in the summary. --AngMoKio 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg

This image is listed as being an FP at Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy, but it doesn't have a tag on the image's description page. I can't find any link to a FP-nomination of delisting page. Anrie 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Moves from w:en (maybe others)

Just as a note, w:en has uses the template FeaturedPicture, Commons has a redirect to that template for FP pictures, so an FP from w:en that gets transfered from Commons will have the template in it and be marked as FP in Commons when it probably shouldn't. --Dori - Talk 15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I also saw a duplicate FP (Image:Arc Triomphe-1.jpg when it should be just Image:Arc Triomphe.jpg). If someone is so inclined, it might be useful to do a search in all FPs that do not have a nomination page. Most of them will probably have the nomination page under some other name (e.g. edits) and in that case we can put in the parameter for the actual page. For the other ones we can remove the FP template as they're not FP. --Dori - Talk 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet another possibility, for a while the subpages were under "Commons:Featured pictures candidates" whereas they are now (along with the template), under "Commons:Featured picture candidates" so many have broken nomination links because of that. --Dori - Talk 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pic of the day 18-8-2008

A bug pissing... really great subject! will it ever be possible to select a less disgusting picture to show in each wikipedia's main page, by the way? We had something like 15 pics of bug out of 31 days in August... I think we shoul be more carefull choosing pics which may disgust the watcher --Sailko (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

    • This kind of beastly comments is not welcome here. Maybe you should be more carefull choosing the words ... and the place to use them. May I also suggest you use your fingers to help counting? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg

This is listed as being a featured picture, but there are no links from any FP nomination to it or a template identifying it as such. Anrie (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Then why is it listed under Commons:Featured pictures? Anrie (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

File:USAF F-15C fires AIM-7 Sparrow 2.jpg

This particular picture is listed as being a Featured Picture, but is of inferior quality, and does not have a nomination. In addition, it is listed as the POTD for 23rd June, 2006, but a quick check of the records reveals that it wasn't (This one was). This information was added by User:Athaenara in Feb 2009. What's the go? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the templates were copied over from en:wp where it was featured, I have cleaned up the page. It was indeed POTD on en:wp. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you make a picture a featured image candidate? --154.20.103.216 02:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Movie for Wikipedia

I have uploaded a short featured movie for Wikipedia: link here --TudorTulok (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Two original contributions and the rest are old pictures. Not very representative of FP. --Dschwen (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mailman not seeing commons FP list anymore?

I just noticed that the Mailman list has no entries for March '10. Is anyone aware of this? Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions about File:Different Slant on Orion (495636660).jpg

This image was created from this

  • Should there be source link to Hubblesite original,
  • As its a manipulated image should it be in Orion Categories
  • How does a PD-NASA licensed image become CC-by,
  • Is it even in scope,

I ask this during the Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Different Slant on Orion (495636660).jpg but there was no response Gnangarra 12:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please remove FP status from all my images. I regret having ever contributed here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's helpful, and I'm sad that you're gone. But I don't have the call on this. ←fetchcomms 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

10 million files

Commons is approaching 10 million files, and should get there in within the week. There's a draft release in progress at Commons:Press releases/10M. I think it would be appropriate for some description of FP's work to be there.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm specifically referring to this one. Ari Linn (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Found an answer myself. Ari Linn (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for not sharing... how does one go about de-featuring an image? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One visits Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Featured_picture_delisting_candidates --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Preponderance of insects

The "Animals" section shows only insects as examples, and of those, two are dragonflies.

I'd really like to see a more representative selection of the subsections. Perhaps one from each of: arthropods, fish, birds, mammals? -Miskaton (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

These are just the last four promoted FP of animals and will change dinamically. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Please take a look at: Commons:Village_pump#QI/VI/FP_categories. Thanks - A.Savin 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Circa 1890? Seriously?

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg
"A woman using a keypunch to tabulate the United States Census, circa 1890."
And we all accept that? We even make it a picture of the day, without any comment on the date?
The full description in the archives at least indicates 1890 - 1950. This picture clearly is much closer to 1950 than it is to 1890.
Whaledad (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As a rough guess I'd say this picture was made in the 1930s or 1940s, but certainly not in 1890. Trijnsteltalk 19:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Category astronomy

I find unfortunate that the images used in the display page for the category astronomy gives 3 videos, with very similar visual experience. This page is meant to navigate quickly within categories, but also to give an idea of what is within the categories. The astronomy category contains great stuff. Could not it be better displayed with more visual and non similar examples ? Anthere (talk)

Two new focus-stacked images

Just bringing these to your attention. Not sure if they're exceptional by your standards, but they blow up nicely.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Valmy battle.jpg needs to be reviewed

This file needs a review as seemingly nobody checked that User:Jack Bufalo Head uploaded a version of a different painter. See my comments on the disc concerning related articles and file description. -- Хрюша ?? 09:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:11-09-fotofluege-cux-allg-25a.jpg

Hi @ all!

This image has been promoted to a featured image with the version from 4 September 2011. The version of 4 September 2011 has a lower resolution and quite sharp. In 2013 the creator of this photo uploaded a higher resoluted version over it without any community consens. The recent version is surely not a featured picture because it is very blurry and unsharp. Is that ok to act like this? 178.2.53.107 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What you said makes no sense at all. Both images have pretty much the exact same resolution. The second image has a considerably higher pixel count. That does not add much new detail, but it certainly cannot make the image worse. I wish people would get a grip on the concept of resolution and wouldn't just mindlessly count pixels and look at the images at 100% magnification. --Dschwen (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

0.0003% ?

"5,098 of such images in the Commons repository which is roughly 0.0003% of the available images (16848753)"? Someone should correct that statement. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day - other Wikipedias

"salle Raidos" in the Paris underground mine tunnel network.

Hello,

I noticed that one of my images was promoted to 'Featured Photo' and was elected 'Image of the day' on August 19th, 2011 on Hebrew Wikipedia. Is this worthy of mention, and if so, how would I go about tagging it on English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? Thanks for any insight, cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I may have answered my own question: the Template:Assessments. Unfortunately I can't link to the Hebrew FA Nomination Page using the 'henom=' attribute - I'm sure that it's my English input messing things up. Can anyone help? Thank you…ThePromenader (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


Static, non-photographic media

This category is becoming so disorganised as to be near-useless for navigation. I think it should be divided into about 3 new categories, and some of its contents that better fit elsewhere reshuffled (such as images of scenes from history being moved to "Historical"). Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FP Image Size

In this era of retina and other high density displays can we please feature our FPs at a image size that doesn't make them look like postage stamps on the screen? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Others Arthropods"

That's a category at the bottom of the page. It should be Other Arthropods, but I can't figure out how to change it. Please make the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Also changed a few for consistency. — Julian H.✈ 09:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I like to fix spelling mistakes whenever possible. In the future, how would I be able to make this kind of correction? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You can edit a template by click on the "e", top left of the template. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

In the 3rd slot from the left under "Places", in lieu of an image, I see "Featured picture candidates/Set/Pittsburgh panoramas". It is not clickable. I don't know how to fix the problem, but it sure looks bad and needs to be fixed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem has recurred with the leftmost slot in "Static non-photographic media". This is a bad bug. Wouldn't someone who knows how to fix problems like this tackle it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I manually fixed this one. Yann (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
So that does work. Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Nu, is anyone reading this talk page? This is a bad problem that needs solving. Please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Better you post at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates which is watched by more people. Jee 03:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No-one seems to be paying attention there, either. It's really awful. I think I'd better try the Village pump. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's not that no one pays attention to CT:FPC, it's partly because the page didn't appear on most people watchlist as your edit was followed not long later by a bot's. -- KTC (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO the bot should take the first image of the set. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bot problem. It does that. Trouble is, the people who maintain the bots are very hard to reach, let alone push for updates. Also, I'd say include all the images: An FPC page just isn't a set gallery for what we want to be linking people to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Captions

What's with the captions that cover entire pictures? Eg Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have the More button more prominent

Hi

It would be very helpful to have the More button more prominent for people not used to Wikimedia, perhaps it could be called full set or similar? Its very easy to miss the more button and think that the only images are the ones on this page.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

John Cummings the changes to make the more links more prominent can be made using CSS so a graphic shouldn't need to be made for that purpose (making note about graphic due to your COM:GL/ILL request ).
Examples of CSS to make the more link more noticeable:
and

I don't ever use this page, so I'm going to leave changes to this page up to those who actually use it. Just make sure to test your changes before making your edit. Offnfopt(talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Offnfopt, thanks so much, would it be possible to put each link in a button? maybe similar to the More details button in media viewer? Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
John Cummings check out the {{Clickable button}} and {{Clickable button 2}} templates. Offnfopt(talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit: The media viewer button uses the Agora styles, example More.Offnfopt(talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Offnfopt, this is amazing, it works really well (just a placeholder icon obviously) Arachnids. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Offnfopt, Here is a proper version Diptera (Flies), is there an easy way to convert all the buttons? I would be very happy to create new white versions of the illustrations is someone could help me with the code. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Please could someone make the icons next to the links to categories not clickable? It may be confusing for non Wikimedians using this site to click on what they think is a link to a set of images but then its just a big version of the logo used for that category.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

John Cummings Regarding disabling picture links next to the categories, that can only be done on images that are free of licensing requirements. Meaning you can disable the link of a image being displayed if the image is {{Cc-zero}} or public domain, etc but the images that are under other licenses such as those that have attribution requirements or require the license notice to be displayed, the links can't be disabled for these since the link is what satisfies the licensing requirement. The permissions for the various images are mixed so I think it would be more confusing to the user if the link was disabled for a subset of the images but not for the others. Offnfopt(talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?

Hi

I reformatted Commons:Featured_pictures,_list to fit with the styling of all its subpages, however I thought that once I had saved that page it would then show on this page..... Have missunderstood something?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Update: Its working now, not sure it was a cache refreshing or a kindly user. --John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Change the enviroment to show a more beautifull but irreal image?. For example:

To the point that it became acceptable? --The Photographer 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • From here we can assume the rejection of original version was more because of the crop than the background. Maybe someone thought that snow background is better for a Snow leopard too. :) Jee 07:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, The background come from where? @Niabot: --The Photographer 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Should this photo be nominated for destarring on this basis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
IMHO yes --The Photographer 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

FP gear statistics

I thought I came across (maybe a year ago) some statistics about featured pictures based on individual image metadata. E.g. the cameras or camera brands most often used. Am I making this up? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? :) — Rhododendrites talk |  01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Flick has statistics similar to what you're looking for. I personally find the technical aspects of photography already a bit overblown here on Commons. A fun fact would be to know how many times people used the words "resolution" or "chromatic" compared to how many times they used the words "aesthetics" and "viewpoint" ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 
And "noise" problems that now could be easy to fix --The Photographer 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Nomination

I really have no idea how this process works, but File:2016 Singapur, Downtown Core, Marina Bay Sands i ArtScience Museum (10).jpg is one of the better picture I've seen in a while. Even looking at other pictures of the same (admittedly impressive) building, many of which are from the same contributor, this one in particular has pretty much ideal lighting and angle, and is basically perfectly framed.

Can someone tick the right boxes for a nomination, or point me to exactly where the step-by-step is? TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, See here: Commons:Featured picture candidates. Please add a category from COM:FP. Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers seems appropriate here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Aaand...after reading through some of the guidelines...I think I'm probably out of my depth. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Logos of films

Hello. Can I upload to Wikimedia Commons logos of the films? --ToJack (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2016 Results


The 2016 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2016 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In the first round, there were 1475 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 58 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).

In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 4765 people who voted in total (R1 and R2).

  • In the first round, 2553 people voted for all 1475 candidates.
  • In the second round, 3625 people voted for all 58 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 615 people voted for the winner, File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg.
  2. In second place, 443 people voted for File:Khaoyai 06.jpg.
  3. In third place, 352 people voted for File:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in the drift ice region north of Svalbard.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:The Devil bargains with God over Job's faith in Duomo (San Gimignano).jpg

Wrong author (it's Bartolo di Fredi and not Lippo Memmi). --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 09:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Jurors for WikiScienceCompetition 2017

Hi, if you did not see my message on English or Frenc or Spanish wikipedia or at the Commons village pump please take a look in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/09#Upcoming_Wiki_Science_Competition. We are looking for jurors with wikimedia expertise. This way, some of the picture can be better described and classified. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Photographs in extreme temperatures

I am trying to make long exposure panoramas, however, I have suffered a burn in my hands after spending an hour trying to make a shot at -43 C. Please, I ask the help of experienced photographers in cold climates who could recommend me some way adequate to protect my hands and be able to manipulate the camera at the same time --The Photographer 19:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Something like that [3] ? --A.Savin 13:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Perhaps a bit late, but I just saw this. The best way is to use double layers. First a pair of thin waterproof gloves. The ones used for kayaking or canoeing are best. The are not slippery so you get a good grip on the camera. You can also use a pair of tight-fitting thin leather gloves. Over those you wear a pair if skiing gloves/mittens without fingers. There are those with anti-slippery coating on the inside. You can also look at hunting gloves. They have a small hole for the trigger finger or have "hoods" that you can fold away, like these. Kayaking and hunting gear are the best cold-weather things for photographers. Stay warm! :) --cart-Talk 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Objects

Is it time to make a special page for "Sculptures"? That part is getting a bit long. --cart-Talk 14:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas

See Commons talk:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas. Is this category deprecated since 2015? Ignoring the note, many FP-Panoramas have been added here in the last 3 years. --Milseburg (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that if a photo has been considered more than once, the "is [[considered]] one of the finest images" links will go to the first nomination vote, where it was rejected, rather than to the second, where to was accepted. Examples are File:Io highest resolution true color.jpg (first and second) and File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (first and second). WolfmanSF (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The automatic Bot-service can't always follow what we humans are up to on FPC. ;) It's the same trouble when a file is re-named during a nomination process (the Bot will mark the redirected page as FP instead of the new name if the nom page isn't moved too) or for set nominations when the bot can't find a single file to put the star on. You have to fix this manually by directing the [[considered]] to where it should go. You do that by adding the |com-nom= to the {{Assessments}} template.

    In this case: |com-nom=Io highest resolution true color.jpg/2 and |com-nom=PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg/2

    I have fixed that for you. --Cart (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! WolfmanSF (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More subcategories under "Sports"?

How about dividing the two categories of individual sports and team sports into more detailed categories like "soccer", "winter sports", "track and field", "cycling" and so forth, but keeping the existing ones? That would make it a bit more straight forward to sort new FPs into an appropriating category. --Granada (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Notifying about a discussion at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Why_not_export_all_the_videos_at_Commons:Featured_pictures/Animated_to_COM:FVC

Hi,

There is an ongoing discussion to export all videos which are FP to COM:FV. please take a look Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Why_not_export_all_the_videos_at_Commons:Featured_pictures/Animated_to_COM:FVC -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Im trying to insert the propper link to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Balaclava as suggested fashion piece for winter 2018-modeld by ModelTanja.jpg but I'm doing something wrong. Can anyone help me out on this? Note: You get to image with the the faulty featured picture box by clickin on the link and then the Image. Thank you. --Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, only the filename? No wonder it didn't work with the whole link, I guess. Tank you.--Tobias ToMar Maier (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RSS down

FP RSS is down? catfood can't work--shizhao (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

An FP already renamed once before but should be moved back or to a more accurate title

File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for refusing to give up her seat for a white passenger on a segregated municipal bus in Montgomery, Alabama.jpg

This file is mislabeled. The previous name was more accurate. I have updated the description to correctly define the subject of the photo. I have filemover rights but I hesitate from moving it because it is FP. The photo is not from when she was first famously arrested but a second arrest not as famous but just as notable. (Read file description for more details.) Can anyone offer advise? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Coffeeandcrumbs, please go ahead and move/fix it so that everything, facts and all, will be correct. Since it's an FP, its even more vital that it is as correct as possible. The file move will not affect the photo's FP status and the redirects will take carte of finding the file after the move. It is not the first FP to be corrected after the assessment was given. Thanks for finding out and fixing this. --Cart (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
W.carter, I created this redirect. Should I have moved the nomination page instead? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs You should not have created the redirect and it is unnecessary to move the page. Lots of photos are corrected and renamed after the nomination is completed, the nom page stays the same since it is integrated in the system's code. You use the |com-nom= parameter in the 'Assessments' instead. A redirect will really mess things up in case, for example, the photo is up for 'delist' sometime in the future. I've put a 'speedy delete' on the redirect and fixed the com-nom to avoid any bugs and mishaps. --Cart (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
W.carter, thank you! Understood. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

Hi all, I've created this page with some FP stats. If you have any comments, feel free to post them at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Statistics so we keep the discussion at one place. Cheers, --Podzemnik (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of delisted pictures from the FP Galleries

I have just noticed that FPs that got successfully delisted are not being removed from the FP Galleries by the FPCBot. So, I have removed the ones that I know were recently delisted. I would not mind taking on the duty of removing all delisted pictures from the Galleries every time one gets delisted if no one else is willing to. StellarHalo (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

StellarHalo, the FPCBot isn't programmed to process and remove delisted FPs (or fix the delist and replace). That entire process is far to complicated to entrust to the Bot, so it has, and is, always been done manually. I know that from time to time, inexperienced users try to "close" delists by simply closing the nom and remove the delisted FP from the gallery. Well, there is a bit more to it. Please read the full instructions on COM:FPC#Closing a delisting request, including log, chronological, assessment on the file page, FP categories etc. If you open a delist request, you should be prepared to deal with what comes after. Unfortunately, that is seldom on delist nominators' mind: "It's all fixed by a Bot". Well, the name of that "Bot" has mostly been A.Savin and sometimes Cart and a few other. You are more than welcome to sort out whatever mess there has been made. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not migrate translations to use Special:Translate?

Are there reasons that why translations must be traditional typed? Instead of a smart Extension? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Non FP pictures in gallery?

In Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Armenia there seem to be images which to my untrained eye do not seem to be of FP quality and are not marked as featured pictures on the file page (see File:Эчмиадзин.JPG, File:Church Gayane 40.JPG, and File:Татев 006 - panoramio.jpg). Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It is NikolayMoscow who is adding photos wildly at the FP galleries. Please stop this and read the rules for FP. --Cart (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed photo

File:Rapanui Rock during sunset, Sumner, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg is in the North Macedonia section of Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural. Not sure how to fix it Buidhe (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

When you see something like this, you simply pick up the entry from the wrong page and section and place it where it belongs. I have done that now. [4] [5]
This happened because the nomination didn't have a link to the right gallery. New Zealand has a page of it's own due to so many 'Natural' photos taken there. The right page and section should have been Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand#Canterbury (Waitaha). When the nominator wrote Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#New Zealand, FPCBot couldn't find that and placed it at the next section which was 'North Macedonia'.
Guys, this is why I keep nagging you all to actually click on the gallery links you create, and see that they go to the right place. I'm not around 24/7 to fix things and by now most of you should be able to do a simple click-check. --Cart (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessments|featured=1

I have noticed that the excellent badge at File:Schloss Johannisberg (Aschaffenburg) II.jpg automatically leads to the wrong nomination. This would be correct: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Johannisberg (Aschaffenburg) II.jpg/2 How can you change that? --Milseburg (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Milseburg: You can set it in the |com-nom= parameter, e.g. 
{{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Schloss Johannisberg (Aschaffenburg) II.jpg/2}}
—Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
That's it. Thank you! --Milseburg (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the "Galleries" internal link widget, the link "Fungi" goes to the Space Exploration section, the "Space Exploration" link goes to the Sports section and so on. I can't see from the code how to fix this. Any help welcome! MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

MartinPoulter: Can you please provide a link, url or diff to exactly where you found these bad links (the origin page/s). I can't find this. Thanks. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, found it! And fixed it (diff). It's an auto-generated contents box, {{int:Toc}}, originating from the transcluded Commons:Featured pictures, list. A long time ago, "Plants and fungi" was one gallery, and when it split up into two galleries: "Plants" and "Fungi", someone forgot to fix the code for the contents box. Works fine now. --Cart (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Cartilaginous fishes

I was looking for featured pictures of cartilaginous fishes. Initially I looked in Commons:Featured pictures/Animals, which has none. I now found out that these pictures are hidden in Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish #Class_:_Chondrichthyes_(Cartilaginous_Fishes). I wasn't looking there because Commons:Featured pictures deceptively describes that page as “Actinopterygii (Ray-finned fish)”. How should we resolve this?

Pinging @Christian Ferrer: , @Daniel78: . If we change the description then I'll also consider changing the icon.

– b_jonas 10:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a translated page, with the title for that page translated, so I'll have to be careful when editing it. – b_jonas 11:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

overflow

At least with my desktop some gallery pages seem to overflow. I have tried to fix it at Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy by making the pictures smaller, but e.g. Commons:Featured pictures/Historical still has the problem. Proposals? Habitator terrae 🌍 11:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Now I improved my fix by puting all pictures with a height-width ratio, which is higher than 5-2 into galleries with no height specified. I propose, that this is done with the other pages to, what do you think? Habitator terrae 🌍 11:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

cemeteries

Under category 8 or places, only "cemeteries" is not put through to translate segment. Can you fuzzy/pushing for translation please? FYI, the Translation Extension suggests en/ja translation is 100% finished, but actually not. Omotecho (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I see File:Lithobates catesbeianus PP.jpg is featured : there is the logo, and it is at Commons:Featured pictures/chronological. But if I look at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lithobates catesbeianus PP.jpg, it is not featured. What is the good thing ?

Thanks. Touam (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Touam There was a second nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lithobates catesbeianus PP.jpg/2, which passed. BigDom (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

About FP pictures of Wilfredor

Because of this nomination and Charles comment it has made me reflect on alterations I made in the past. The biggest alteration I made was this, but this image has created distrust in the community. I have no way to prove that there are no alterations in these photos, but I would like to help clarify this situation. The raws of my FPs, some are in the commons archive (a disappeared project), but most were deleted from my hard drive. So, I would like to be able to withdraw my FPs from the FP categories voluntarily and I would like to know if there is a correct mechanism to do this. Thank you. Wilfredor (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I see no reason for you to withdraw any FPs that are genuine images, or genuine images with the usual edits that we all do. I would just apologise on the delist nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I am 100% with Charles. Wilfredo, you have many wonderful and (I hope ;–)) authentic photographs. Demoting all of them would mean an important loss for our featured pictures. What I would ask you instead: Please check your featured pictures one by one. Are there more of them which were created artificially or were manipulated heavily? If yes, then please list these photos (and only these) here and we can discuss how to proceed with them. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I was reviewing and found two where there are major alterations, the first is this where you can see in the history of the photo the alteration from the beginning, also in this other photo I added on the guitar a photo of a baby that the same subject in the photo showed me. Also this photo in which I added a bull (see file history) and a bullfighter that were present that same day in that same bullring a few minutes before in another photo. In some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way. Except for this nomination made a few years ago, today I always try to be sincere with my alterations, an example was this nomination where I explain and even upload the original image without alteration --Wilfredor (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The bull is irrelevant as it wasn't there when image submitted for FP. It looks as is the homeless man image should be withdrawn as the added baby sticker (although small) is not OK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you this was not ok not to have mentioned it but my intention was not to hide it but to honor the person's baby, in the history you can see the first image without the baby Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Disagree, no need for such a drama. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Disagree I don't see that there are any significant falsifications of reality in these pictures, except for the bull, which is no longer present. I'm not sure I'd have voted for this given the extent of the manipulations made, but the community was clearly aware of these manipulations when the vote was cast, so there is nothing incorrect about it being featured. Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

So few technology pictures!

I was just looking for featured pictures to demonstrate the impact of software in the world to illustrate that wikipedia article. Despite the ubiquitous impact of software on everyday life, there's hardly any pictures that would show it. For example, I couldn't find even FP showing a smartphone or embedded system. It seems like the majority of software-related FPs could be space exploration. Buidhe (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_pictures/Archive_1&oldid=954165884"