Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

A necessary requirement

Based in the last comment in a delist nomination I strongly propose the publication of the corresponding RAW file for each image, accessible through a link in the image description, using reliable platforms such as Internet Archive for storage. This measure will allow for greater transparency and clarity in the nomination process, facilitating the verification of the authenticity and integrity of the submitted photographs. As previously discussed, phenomena such as chromatic aberration, inconsistencies in noise levels between the sky and the foreground, or artifacts resulting from the use of selection and erasing tools can raise legitimate doubts about the manipulation of an image. By providing the original RAW file, evaluators and the community can more accurately analyze the technical details and edits made, dismissing unfounded hypotheses and thus avoiding unnecessary discussions that consume valuable time. IMHO, this practice would align our competitions with the standards of seriousness and professionalism observed in recognized photography contests, where participants are required to provide RAW files to support their edits. By properly categorizing manipulated images and ensuring that edits are performed flawlessly—without visible transitions, artifacts, ghosts, or improper alterations of objects in the scene—we enhance the quality and credibility of our nominations. I think that this will promote a fairer environment, preventing misunderstandings and ensuring that the focus remains on the quality of the photos. Thanks for your support. @RealPhotoManiac: Wilfredor (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this mean you want to force everyone to take all pictures in RAW format? Kritzolina (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

He probably just means the original from the camera. --XRay 💬 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, never. On the one hand, the files are very large, on the other hand, developing is part of photography. As an ambitious photographer, I am not prepared to make undeveloped photos available. In addition, RAW files can contain information with third-party rights. --XRay 💬 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It can be uploaded in Internet Archive Wilfredor (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. RAW files stay with me. I also don't want to be associated with photos developed by third parties based on my RAW files. The development is part of the creative process and I only share photos whose development is complete from my point of view. Furthermore, RAW files are proof that I am the photographer of the photos. --XRay 💬 19:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly, and these are valid concerns, as well as the value of the creative process in its development. However, publishing RAW files through reliable platforms like Internet Archive not only ensures the transparency and authenticity of the nominations but also protects your work by demonstrating its origin and preventing unauthorized manipulations. IMHO, you can choose to share only the RAW files of the nominated images, keeping your other files and personal portfolio intact. Wilfredor (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with XRay, Raw files are the best proof of ownership, similar to a film negative. Imagine you upload Raw images to a website that disappears, or that you no longer have access to the account used to upload the files. Everybody holding a copy of your Raw file could claim ownership. Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why it's important to have the files stored locally on a hard drive, since this mechanism is more likely to fail than saving them in Internet Archive. This isn't about losing your files, but about proving that you are the author, with a website that can be validated. Wilfredor (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with XRay and Julesvernex2, period. In the era of film photography we normally sold only photo prints, never the negatives – the public/the customer gets prints, the negatives stay in the archive of the author or of the photo agency. And even today, if you visit a gallery, you can buy the prints, but not the original files. In analogy with that we publish JPEG files (or, in some rare case, PNG files) developed from the raw image files, but not the raw image files. The various reasons have already be named: the raw image files are proofs of authorship; developing a raw image file is a necessary part of the creative process, because it includes many decisive decisions (and no, I am not talking about manipulation – even just selecting the white balance, the brightness, the contrast etc. is an important decision and can totally change the appearance of an image); it would be a nightmare if third parties would publish botched or overprocessed images on the base of our raw image files and claim their authorship for them; etc. – Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: You propose to share the raw image files in order to prevent manipulation and fraud. Well, we can also see this the other way around. If we would publish our raw image files, this would mean to share them with everybody, including swindlers and cheaters – be it the simple boastful photographer who wants to “invent” photos they have never taken, be it the secret service guy who works for Russia or North Korea or Donald Trump, be it the big tech company which uses our data as a base for “AI” training and deep fakes. Everyone of these swindlers and cheaters can do much more on the base of raw image files than on the base of JPEG files. They could create much better, more realistic fake images on the base of raw images than they already do on the base of JPEG images. This means, by handing over our original data to swindlers and cheaters we would give these criminals many more possibilites for their sinister intents and in the end help them to act with intent to deceive. No, I am not going to promote fraud and deception by throwing my raw image files into the throat of swindlers, cheaters and criminals.

This means: I am happy to share selected raw image files with select trustworthy Commons users, if at any time a proof of authenticity is needed. I am not willing to share raw image files with everybody or the rest of the world. Period. – Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this proposal probably negates any further point in me taking part in FPC. If only photos where the creator has made the RAW files publicly available are likely to pass then there is little point in looking through old pictures for high quality content, since the authors are very unlikely to retroactively make the RAW files available just so that I can nominate them. Is there any evidence that we have a problem with the authenticity of our nominations anyway? Cmao20 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 It seems to me that a non-existent problem is being sought for a solution here. Stepro (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposal, though not explicitly stated, focuses specifically on nominations made by our own Commons users, excluding nominations from third-party sources like NASA, historical archives, or Flickr, etc. Wilfredor (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

But I don't nominate any of those things. I nominate photos from other Commons users, some of whom do not participate in FPC and are unlikely to be too happy if I inconvenience them by asking for their RAW photos. If this became standard it would just turn FPC into a few Commons users who are happy to provide their RAWs nominating and reviewing each other's work. It would decrease the diversity of this process, and likely severely affect participation. Why inflict this self-harm on FPC for the sake of a very few cases of deceptively altered photos? Cmao20 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, this issue can be approached from a different perspective by encouraging the publication of RAW files, which helps preserve the original versions of the images. I do not view this as a negative. Additionally, we could implement this measure exclusively for users who name their own photos. IMHO, this way would also promote the nomination of others' images, thereby preventing self-absorption and fostering diversity in nominations Wilfredor (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I am tempted to make a different propsal here concerning only users who have been repeatedly accused of manipulating images ... but no, I will not go down that route. Kritzolina (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• This is a really bad idea. (Also: How many time do we need to have this discussion?) I agree with Aristeas, XRay and Julesvernex2. Raw files stays with the photographer, it's your proof that you've taken the photo. I see so many artistic things snatched up and used in a fraudulent way on the Internet every day. As soon as something is shared, however "secure", it gets stolen. That's the reality we live in now. And on top of that, can you imagine the mess it will make here on Commons when 100+ eager FPC editors want to proffer their version of the photo? The discussions will be endless! Today, how a photographer edits their photo, is just as much part of the process of making a good image, as selecting the scene. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Can we just have some stability? It feels like every time I check this page, some kind of new rule is being proposed. The adage 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind. At the moment we have a healthy and active community that is succeeding in promoting large numbers of high quality photos every month, and those few photos that break the rules or are deceptively edited are usually caught and delisted in a proper process. FPC is working fine. Cmao20 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just FYI, Internet Archive was hacked and is offline Wilfredor (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Misleading supports to undeclared fake image(s)

Hi everyone, are we allowed to retrospectively remove our {{Support}} votes and replace them with {{Oppose}} in the situation of past promoted FP nominations, that were (undeclared) fake images, at the time of voting. Nothing indicated on the nomination page(s), nor on the file page(s). Only later, a {{Retouched}} template (with major modification), that perhaps a few people missed. Certainly some discussion(s) and visible red spot would have curb collective ardor / impacted the (unanimous) result. See also Commons:Featured pictures/Photo techniques/Composites and Montages, instead of "Places", "Animals", "Landscapes", etc. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Basile, this is a very interesting and understandable suggestion. The question is, how should it work? Do you mean to edit the original nomination subpage and to replace the votes there, directly in place?

I would prefer if we would not do that because it makes it more complicated to trace back and understand the history of FP promotions and delistings. In order to find “fake” FPs, FPs which have been vandalized (so that they do not appear anymore in categories/on the gallery pages, etc.), I have written a program which reads all FP gallery pages and categories and checks the results, also comparing them with the nomination subpages. This works very well and has already helped me to find a lot of “fake” FPs, missing/lost FPs, etc. But the program must be able to understand the data, and the same applies to the poor FP maintainers (i.e. me, Cart, you ...) who must check FPs. When the nomination subpages get too complicated, we will make errors when checking the validity of a FP etc.

Therefore I would prefer if old nomination subpages would not be changed, to keep them easily understandable and to avoid that one must check the page history or read many details in order to find out whether a photo is/was a real FP or not ... We already have the “delist” process where users can state their current assessment of an image and also express their feelings if they have been betrayed by undeclared manipulations. In my opinion this is sufficient.

If we really feel the need to add our new assessments to the original nomination subpages, I would suggest to add a ruler (Wikitext: ----) after the last line of the nomination and to append the new discussion there. This allows a clear distinction between the original nomination discussion and the new discussion, and keeps the nomination subpage easy to understand.

Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You Rang, M'Lord? Reading the suggestion, I get an old song by Cher spinning around in my mind: If I Could Turn Back Time. Why create a mess when it's totally unnecessary? We always vote and select things to the best of our abilities at the time, when new facts and evidence comes to light, we can make make new evaluations. This goes for almost everything in life. Here on Commons, that is what what we have delist nominations for.

Yes, I can understand that it might seem like an embarrassment in some cases to have voted out of ignorance, and someone might want a "clean" voting record. To me that is not the case, I think it's a strength to have on record that you can improve your way of evaluating images. Old records stay as they lay. --Cart (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to provide these detailed answers above. I don't feel extremely comfortable with a delist nomination, because we never know what will be the result. And if the delist does not conclude as expected, I will have 1) my support still associated to this fake image in the original nomination, and 2) the displeasure of an unsuccessful delist nomination. I would prefer a 100% winning solution. So I'm going to think about a bit more, and try to find something safe. -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

At least with a delist nomination, you can vote for a delist with an explanation, and have it on record that you now have more information and would have voted differently than the first time. That stays even if the delist is unsuccessful, and such a record is always there as a link on the file page. --Cart (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps one solution could be to tweak the rules slightly so that if a photo is shown after its nomination to have been significantly manipulated in a way that affects the content and wasn’t declared during the nomination, it can be automatically delisted even if the delist nomination does not meet quorum? This would make sense to me because undeclared manipulations that weren’t noticed at the time surely invalidate the original vote.Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, who has the authority to decide that a photo is "significantly manipulated"? What if there is disagreement between FPC regulars on that? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A good point. This means that (in order to be transparent, fair, etc.) we need again a discussion. And IMHO this means that we can/should just keep the current delisting rules. Of course if at any time the worst thing happens and we find out that a whole lot of the FPs by a certain contributor contain heavy undeclared manipulations, we can still use the special approach which has been used in the past to cope with swindlers like Livio/Commonists/… – namely, to make a dedicated discussion on this talk page about the question whether we should demote all/several FPs at once. IMHO the combination of the regular, slow, but transparent and save delisting rules with the possibility of a special discussion for extreme cases is enough to cope with almost all possible cases; and if we ever cannot handle a problem this way, only then the time has come that we need to discuss new rules. As Cmao20 has nicely put it in the other current discussion, “Can we just have some stability? It feels like every time I check this page, some kind of new rule is being proposed. The adage 'if it isn't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind.” – Aristeas (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I shared the original post about RAW files like proof titled "A necessary requirement", because a user recently cited it in relation to a controversial delisting that is occurring, with the aim of seeking solutions. I believe it is healthy to debate the rules when an event like this arises, always maintaining an appropriate balance. However, I think that resorting to the "argumentum ad antiquitatem" fallacy can impede the necessary evolution. If someone prefers not to participate in the discussion, that is their decision, but there is no need to prevent others from doing so. In this space, everyone is free to contribute and respond at their convenience. Wilfredor (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Everyone is free to contribute", it depends how. There's a major difference between 3 blurred pixels and a huge fake background, that changes everything in a photograph. One upload is a honest work, with fair retouches or local adjustments, while the other one is a misleading photo-manipulation, claiming a wow exactly where the content deceives us. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s it, exactly. Thank you, Basile. – Aristeas (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Wait Thanks for the help. After investigation, I found new elements that visually confirmed my intuition. As a consequence, a standard delist nomination will be proposed as soon as possible at COM:FPC. Not because we can be sure that the FP will be delisted, but because I am 100% sure that the FP should be delisted. By conviction. I wish everybody a pleasant day. -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Château Frontenac, Quebec city, Canada.jpg. And I think the template {{POTYdisqualified}} should also replace the current POTY assessment. -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Just like the church picture, a case by case basis decision will need to be made for that picture. But that decision will be in the hands of the POTY committee. For the castle picture I think the case is "less worse" than the church picture because on the castle picture the retouched picture template was added on 13 November 2020 while the picture was nominated on 12 November 2020 by another user. For the church picture, the uploader was falsly claiming : "The aurora or northern lights shot with a Canon camera over the church at Vik in Iceland on a clear night" making any reviewer of the file think it was a single picture and not a photomontage. This is worse in my opinion. But the problem with the retouched template on the castle picture is that I have the feeling that it's only half the truth because when asked about it here the author's explanations on how the picture was taken don't look convincing.

Anyway for the moment the POTY committee seems to not even want to disqualify the church picture from POTY for reasons that I personnally don't understand. So maybe they won't even do anything with the castle picture once they will be asked to take a decision about it -- Giles Laurent (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I share your astonishment. But this can still evolve. Perhaps in some time. In my opinion, we will end up finding a satisfactory formula. Thanks to the identification of cases, we will have the opportunity to talk about it again anyway. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Fate of delisted pictures that were POTY finalists

Recently a featured picture was delisted and this picture was a POTY finalist.

The question wether it should be removed from all POTY pages was raised.

The discussion is now continuing on the POTY talk page and I invite anyone interested on the matter to participate in that discussion that also concerns FPC users as they are the ones to promote or delist a FP.

Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day -- Giles Laurent (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note about the status of a recent FP

Just a quick note, partly for the sake of transparency - in November of this year I nominated this image which became FP. It now appears that the user who uploaded this picture was a sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. I didn't suspect this when I nominated it - I joined Commons after the original Livio scandal and have never had any significant conversations with him on Commons. But I do remember the Commonists scandal in 2021 when Livio managed to sneak another dozen FPs past us via another sock, and these were then delisted. So I wonder what the correct process is regarding the image I nominated going forward. I personally think the right option is for it to remain a featured picture, because it wasn't nominated by a Livio sock and Livio didn't vote on the nomination himself, so it was just a picture that was evaluated like any other. But I'll leave it up to the community to decide. Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Cmao20, for this notification. Below is a list of 47 FP candidatures impacted by the votes of this (supposedly) "blocked" Livioandronico2013 / PaestumPaestum.

• This one is problematic (7-1) : Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:020912 - Janel Manns - 3b - 2012 Summer Paralympics (01).JPG For a fair evaluation, perhaps it should be renominated.
• Globally, there are only {{Support}} votes (but not always with the consensus).
• This one by the same uploader did not work : Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Via dei Pilastri 02 in Alba Fucens.jpg.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I don't think the support votes affected the recent nominations so could be left as is. But the one Cmao20nominated in good faith should be delisted and deleted as although the uploader didn't nominate it, they were still interested in FPC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment I had a look at what we did last time this happened, in 2021 with the Commonists sock account. We don't necessarily have to do the same things this time, we aren't a common law legal system, but nevertheless precedent might be a useful guide.

1) Any votes from the Commonists account were struck, even if they didn't affect the result. See here.

2) In instances where a vote from Commonists was decisive in getting a picture featured, the picture was delisted, for example here. In many cases the close calls were later renominated and some were restored to FP status, e.g. this. If we followed the same procedure now, this image would be down to 6/1 and therefore would have to be delisted.

3) Commonists/Livio's self nominations, e.g. here, were all delisted. There were thirteen in total. I am not sure as to whether this gives us any guide as to what to do with the photo I nominated, though, because these were delisted because Commonists/Livio had nominated them himself. Does that mean the picture I nominated should be delisted even though he didn't vote or participate in the nomination? I personally don't think so, but if the community decides to delist on the basis that managing to sneak an FP through encourages further sockpuppet behaviour, I won't be upset.

4) The pictures Commonists uploaded were not deleted from Commons. There was a deletion discussion that closed with a near-unanimous consensus to keep, on the basis that Commons would be hurting itself to delete usable and reasonably high quality photos because of the photographer's poor behaviour.

Hopefully some of this is useful. I would be happy to do some of the work in striking the votes if there's a consensus that we should do that. Cmao20 (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Cmao20, for these useful links. I fixed the 10 first candidates on the same model. It was not long, so I can do more tomorrow. Anyone can join, of course, or propose something different -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks to A. Savin for tracking down another sock puppet. This time the damage is limited compared to the Commonists scandal. Still, any maintenance work to undo the damage is too much. Thanks also to Basile for starting to recount the results. Unfortunately, the counts on the chronological archive pages also need to be changed, which I just did for the nominations you already edited for November and December 2024. Maybe I'll get around to cleaning up a few nominations tonight. I would appreciate it if other colleagues could participate in editing. Many thanks in advance and season's greetings to the whole FPC community! -- Radomianin (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Radomianin. I agree we should in theory also fix the scores in the chronological pages, however in that case, the task for the 600 cases of 2021 also remains to be done. Example of an old one I've just corrected today. But since it is very fastidious, I would rather focus on fixing the FPC pages, only. Except for the tangent score / delisting case, of course. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oh dear, I thought this had already been done. It would be a challenging task. If the community doesn't think this is necessary, we can probably skip the corrections on the archive pages. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've struck all the other sockpuppet votes per Basile Morin's example, except for the one where striking the vote would change the outcome. Cmao20 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for your efforts, Cmao20. I just had some nomination pages in the editing process, but our edits collided. It is great that you finished all of them. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Addendum: The vote counts for the remaining nominations on the chronological archive pages have been corrected, 10 in November and 18 in December. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've just fixed the last one, and removed it from the chronological page.

Concerning the status of the promoted FP with PaestumPaestum as author, my subjective opinion is that we should delist this FPC nominated in good faith (sorry for Cmao20 the nominator), to avoid unnecessary gratification. Unfortunately the promoted FP may be displayed on the home page as POTD. Once delisted, the picture will get less chances to be reused on other websites. A link to a banned user is never a good image for Wikimedia Commons. Of course "nomination in good faith" can be specified on the nomination. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good line of reasoning, but if we accept it, should we open a discussion about delisting all of Livio’s FPs? There are still quite a lot that have the star, and I think if our aim is not to gratify the ego of this banned user, they would fall into the same category as the picture I nominated. Cmao20 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks to Basile and Cmao for their suggestions and thoughts. I guess I was a little too quick, because I just opened a delisting nomination. Regarding the old FPs of the original user Livioandronico2013, I think they will remain because they were promoted legitimately at the time. On the other hand, all FPs promoted by the sockpuppet abuse must either be harshly demoted or, as in this case, exemplarily delisted. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe not too quick, if you think it should be delisted, like Charles and me. Perhaps more people believe the same. And otherwise the FP will be kept by consensual decision, that is fair too. So, thanks for your initiative, Radomianin. @Cmao20: you're right that Livioandronico2013 still has FPs but I suppose these "medals" got won at the time Livioandronico2013 was still in activity. It's different from a banned user who escapes the sanction, like here with this new PaestumPaestum account. That's why I believe the FP star should be removed. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)