Commons talk:Picture of the day/Archive 3

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

grammar

Could someone change the intro (2nd paragraph) to this page so that it reads "from among" instead of "among"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.117.57.48 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2018‎ (UTC)

✓ Done Storkk (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Potd/2018-09-27

Hello, I'd changed the picture from current to this one, I'd done it for a many monthes ago. There weren't particularly strong objections. There was a talk with two users on my UserTalk page and they didn't mind. Few days ago one of administrators reverted all my edits and protected appropriate pages so we can't edit them. He done it without discussion or warning. So, I propose to talk about changing the picture here, because the administrator deosn't want to discuss it (except one sentence on my TalkPage after my appeal to him). My point is: I think that the variant proposed by me is neutral and should not raise objections. So, what can you say? --VAP+VYK (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@VAP+VYK: You changed the POTD "without discussion or warning" (or even without a short comment in edit summary), so don't blame others for reverting your changes "without discussion or warning". --jdx Re: 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I started this topic not for you to try justify yourselves, I even didn't mentioned your nickname. Please refrain to attack on my address. There is no place for discussion of administrative actions. --VAP+VYK (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I was kinda stunned to see nudity on the front page. Commons is not censored ... but there is at least the general expectation that it's safe for work if you don't deliberately go seeking out NSFW images. I need to remember not to go to the commons home page at work tomorrow. --B (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jdx: Any chance of changing this? Not exactly safe for a work environment, might get ppl into trouble. Braveheart (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Inclined to agree, no real objection to the image per se, but it shouldn't really be on the front page. Battleofalma (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Fortunately, users of many Wikipedia projects don't see this 'creative work' because there are their own featured images. --VAP+VYK (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It is a creative work - a stunning portrait by a professional photographer. But having a NSFW picture on the front page of Commons is a big FU to everyone who edits from work. --B (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I love women, the picture is beautiful. But, 1. Wikipedia is writing in hundreds of languages, and for many users, naked photos in a neutral encyclopedia are unacceptable. 2. The argument above about "not safe for work". We don't need such pictures as the picture of the day.--Soul Train (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of naked pictures in Wikipedia and always will be because it's not censored. If you go to an article on nudity, sexual intercourse, or penises, you will find images of those topics. This isn't about litigating that - it's about demonstrating respect for the people who read and edit from work by not getting them fired. --B (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
This just doesn't make sense to me. "I don't like it" or "it offends me" are more reasonable arguments to me than "not safe for work." At work one is expected to work, not edit Wikipedia, watch boobies, read (on-line) newspapers nor do anything else not related to work. --jdx Re: 17:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, there are people who have breaks at work, who edit on their lunch hour, or who are free to surf the web while waiting for a customer to come in, waiting for something to compile, or not otherwise occupied. --B (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would really expect more sensitivity and thoughtfulness from people who are maintaining a public-facing page like POTD... Braveheart (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first time there has been nudity on the front page. COM:NOTCENSORED. If you're concerned about it, then...I guess don't visit the main page from work, or visit latest file feed, or...anything else that could potentially load one of the probably millions of photos that contain nudity. GMGtalk 16:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hoverflies mating midair.jpg is basically advertising for its photographer - it's inviting people who desire to reuse the photo to email the photographer for terms. Does this really showcase the best Commons has to offer? I never minded GFDL. I don't know that I really wanted to see it deprectated. But what I certainly don't like is giving prime real estate to users who view Commons not as somewhere that we contribute to but as somewhere that is used for self-promotion. --B (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Selection

How is the POTD selected? I there any process. Can every FP be entered on a free day? Many days for the next years seem already booked. Is this meaingfull. So there is no chance for topicality. --2003:EC:5BDC:FF00:5D61:5F3E:5D37:95D 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions#Changing picture of the day allows for overriding a previous choice. Arlo James Barnes 05:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Picture of the Day: File:Subduction-en.svg

The Picture of the Day for tomorrow, March 4, 2019, needs to be updated. Please see the discussion page for this file for the location/ name of the updated file. Please update this file prior to it becoming the Picture of the Day tomorrow. Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done --jdx Re: 09:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Harvesting descriptions from POTD to file's descriptions

I think it'd be cool if there was a bot that would harvest descriptions that are being created in different languages at POTD and insert them into the file descriptions. Example what I mean is see Template:Potd/2019-06-17 (en) - there are descriptions in 11 languages but the image itself has only three. Is anyone aware of any limitations of this? Do you think it's a good idea? I'd like to ask bot people to have a look at it but I thought I'd ask here first. Maybe the idea was discussed before. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, Podzemnik. I would though only take over versions that are not existing in the description page of the FP image, otherwise it will be hard to find a logic to decide which version should prevail Poco2 10:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Poco_a_poco Good point! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

09 October 2019 Picture

Currently File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Dome 01.jpg is set to be the POTD for 9 October 2019, a seemingly ambiguous date for that image. I was wondering if anyone else thinks that an image such as File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpg would be more appropriate, since especially, among other things, there is a connection between the dates of both images. Thoughts and opinions please! - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 03:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fluffy89502 Does the photo with arrested refugees-immigrants any significance for 9th October? Apart from being taken on that day 9 years ago? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik Not that I am aware of. There may be other significance's between the dates than the reason that I mentioned already that I do not know of. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fluffy89502 Hmmm I'm sorry but I don't really see why the photo that you suggested would better suit for that day. I mean it's just a coincidence that it was taken on that day. If it was taken a week earlier, it wouldn't make a difference to the photo or to the day. I'd understand a need for a change if there was any more meaningful significance like eg. an anniversary of something, a birthdate of someone, a holiday or something what would have connection to events listed at October 9. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Scope of Commons is to collect images for other Wikimedia projects, it's not a photo competition. Desert or beach panorama number 735 may be nice to look at, but adds nothing of value to Commons. But an image of a rare flower or bird does, even if it may be not a technically perfect photo. Commons should show on its main page that it follows its scope, not worship pictures that no one is using.--Chianti (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark this for translation

{{Edit request}} Translation admins: I guess this should be marked, because {{Main Page Template}} is using MyLanguage for this page.--Roy17 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: First, using MyLanguage doesn’t make it necessary to mark the page for translation, redirect language subpages would be enough to make it work (but it doesn’t cause any harm even until that; and the main page template title can be overridden in translations anyway). Second, {{Edit request}} is to reach out for “regular” admins, not translation admins. You can ask for assistance on Commons:Translators' noticeboard, but don’t be surprised if no one wants to do it—converting a such old page with so many translations is a huge amount of work, it may take several hours to complete. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi: please make the necessary change to make that button on main page work as intended, whatever it is. You can do one as an example and I'll be happy to replicate for all languages.--Roy17 (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: The appropriate parameter should be added directly on the main page, like this. (I did the same for the media of the day as well.) —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you potd participants interested in automatic potd tagging ?

If yes:
visit Commons:Bots/Requests/EatchaBot
else
do nothing. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Rethink how POTD is chosen

I haven't paid the choice of POTD much attention. I had naively assumed that folk selected images to give a wide variety of images and perhaps relevant to particular days or seasons or world events. That people here were interested in showing off the best of all of Commons on the front page. Instead it appears to simply be a place for a small set of participants to show off their own work to the near exclusion of others or of variety, and to book slots months/years ahead. Cart's list above showing number of FPs vs number of POTDs shows clearly that the images are not being selected impartially. I think we should rethink how POTD is chosen. Perhaps we should simply choose them at random, perhaps with a little bit of hand-editing per month to ensure the same kind of image doesn't repeat consecutively. And perhaps some images should be low-priority or there are some the community feel should not appear. Perhaps some FPsets are too repetitious and we should only display a small sampling. But I do think we should move away from a system that clearly favours self-promotion and lack of variety and disfavours photos by people who are not active or even not Commoners. Since the slots appear to have been booked far ahead, and the current system is bad, I am not in favour of retaining any of the future bookings once a new system is agreed. Thoughts? --Colin (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

After having created the random mock-up POTD gallery I mentioned above (IMO much nicer to look at), I have to agree that something big needs to be done to make POTD more interesting and diversified, not only wrt subjects but to styles of photos. Right now, POTD does in no way reflect what Commons is all about. --Cart (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
May be you're right. But we have to respect some things: Who will choose images for special dates like Christmas or New Year? Who will respect all the other public holidays? Or have a look to the city anniversaries? --XRay talk 13:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I consider a proper date for each image, if possible (for example Saint Petersburg Stadium on a day in June 2020 where a match of UEFA Euro 2020 is scheduled to take place in this stadium), and otherwise, I look at already nominated images of the same month, and try to choose something completely different from what is nominated a couple of days before and after. This should be IMO self-evident, but not all people seem to care -- for example July 2020 there are photos of natural landscapes both on 9 July and on 10 July (plus a flower on 12), that's not good. If all people would nominate more carefully, perhaps this discussion would not have been as necessary. --A.Savin 14:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Picture of the day/Guidelines has the Wikipedia process. This appears to be fairly sequential just going through the list, with a bit of reordering to avoid consecutive birds etc. They also apply some editorial restraint wrt nudity or disturbing photos (e.g., would this appear on the front page of a quality newspaper) and also where any accompanying article is simply a tiny stub. I'd favour randomness over sequential ordering because we have far more FPs than could ever appear. Some editorial restraint seems quite sensible and appropriate.
There are lots of people on Commons who like performing housekeeping tasks but don't produce content themselves. Perhaps the photographers should let go of this one. --Colin (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Copying my comment above: finalists at POTY should be the first images to get a vacant slot. Could finalists be notified by a bot and invited to create a POTD? A voting system would be nice so that boring pictures (of animals, churches, restored images, panoramas) could be removed. What about modifying the FPC  Support vote to be  Support if you want to promote the image and have it as POTD? Charles (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Caution: No need to involve pictures in that suggestion, the letters POTDC(andidate) are enough. Let's not clogg the poor BOTs. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to limit the number of images eligible for POTD, but a need to choose POTD more carefully. The pool of possible POTD is big enough and that's a good thing; we have something we may choose from. --A.Savin 14:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
We could select a random image, previously published images will have a lower priority (the more times it has been published the lower the probability of being selected), if there is a special date (Christmas, Commemoration of some historical event), the robot will search FP of the day in a subcategory related to this special date. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
There are more FPs than potential POTD slots (assuming the process continues) so I don't think we should have any repeat appearances and some way to weight images might be useful. I think in an earlier discussion Jee mentioned that images with a high number of support votes could be chosen above those with few. And POTY is another measure of popularity that could be used. I don't favour yet another voting system to introduce POTD. Too much bureaucracy. It should be possible to create a bot with a weighted sorted list of upcoming candidates, from which a neutral team select images and reject images. I don't see how 'my image' should have any weight at all, yet that seems to be the only measure used by many at present. --Colin (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info Some more statistics, number of FPs created per year:
  • 2010: 783 FP
  • 2011: 599 FP
  • 2012: 988 FP
  • 2013: 962 FP
  • 2014: 983 FP
  • 2015: 1322 FP
  • 2016: 1475 FP
  • 2017: 1260 FP
  • 2018: 963 FP
  • 2019: 1196 FP (so far)
  • Most years only have 365 days/POTD. --Cart (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the idea of random selection. There are a great many reasons why someone might want an image to appear on a particular day other than big holidays. For example, I've had a picture of a pitcher plant on Pitcher Plant Day (I didn't know there was one either), and wanted to display an image I took at a particular photography-related event displayed the next time the event was run so as to encourage more people to upload their photos to Commons. There are a lot of reasons. If there were some way to indicate one or more requested days and for someone else to do the scheduling, that would be fine, but random doesn't seem ideal. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
After a clean slate, maybe we should simply take the top 365 FPs from previous year and distribute them into the slots. They have after all been voted on by the community as the best of what we have. --Cart (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

While we're throwing out ideas... On enwiki a while ago there was a POTD coordinator. I think that when he retired he was replaced with a more ad hoc group (I could be wrong). Maybe that sort of thing could work here, with, say, 3 coordinators who run POTD. We could have a noticeboard-like forum where people could post carefully formatted requests for particular images/days, etc. I don't know if anyone would want this job, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  • There was someone who chose the POTD's on enwiki, but it wasn't a good system. There is no ad hoc group I'm aware of. It's a free-for-all like Commons. Could a bot simply trawl POTY votes? Charles (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I am in favor that a robot would bring less inconvenience, if something goes wrong we can blame the bot and improve it instead of blaming a person. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to keep through ideas into the pot for now. I think a bot could help prepare an ordered list of candidates to consider. This could then either be directly placed into all the slots (as Cart suggests above) or we could have a group pick from them with some discussion. Even the automatic placement could then have a review process to move or replace images if people wanted to. Charles, I'm not in favour of using POTY votes as the only metric. POTY has its own issues wrt categorising images which means some subjects get neglected, and it places less weight on the technical quality than do voters at FPC. User:Rhododendrites how common is it for there to be a useful day/date <-> image correspondence? Is it really as important as on Wikipedia where there are corresponding articles? How much loss would that be if we just did what Cart proposed (excluding those already POTD)? --Colin (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
IF we had a Bot doing the task, we could some way cross/combine the net-votes (supports minus opposes for example) at FP nominations with the placing at POTY and get a list that takes into account both popularity and technical/FPC aspects. Also checking there are no more than 2 from each photographer/month and that it hasn't already been POTD. That might give us the 365 we are looking for. --Cart (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. Charles (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
how common is it for there to be a useful day/date - it's the exception, to be sure, and perhaps people will decide it's just not all that important as compared to a more workable system. Still, it would be sad. My experience with POTD isn't going to be representative, necessarily, since I've only nominated a handful. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Your "experience with POTD" is not based on how many POTD you have made, but on how often you have looked at the Main Page or any other place where the POTD is displayed. Based on that, you can decide how well you think POTD represents the best of Commons. --Cart (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What I mean is that the existence of a particular day/photo match is the most likely motivator for me to nominate something. Otherwise I tend to forget (an exception recently when I was nominating one and decided to add a few others). So my experience of the importance of scheduling certain images on certain days is skewed towards that experience (because it's mostly the only reason I would care about POTD). I rarely see the main page, so by that measure I'm not the most experienced, either. :) I have my bookmark toolbar link to my watchlist as they way I get to Commons. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

FP vs PotD ratio

I have published a table with a snapshot of current number of FPs vs number of PotD for all users where there is convenient data. Category talk:Featured pictures by creator#PoTD appearance December 2019. Do let me know if my maths is wrong. -- Colin (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Colin Thanks. Having a look at the stats, I think that it's quite clear that we need to change the way how PoTD is chosen to allow more diversity. I'll support any proposal that will allow that. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. But we need to be sure that top quality and interesting images are chosen. I've aleady suggested POTY voting numbers as a guide (though the categories are not perfect). Could there be a POTY button incorporated into the first round of voting with, say, 10 votes per user? And you can vote for your own FPs! Charles (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Well FP is supposed to select only the top quality images and sometimes the ones that get slender support are actually great images but folk are pixel peeping some CA in the trees, which I don't think many folk viewing the main page thumbnail are going to be too worried about.
The problem with huge polls like POTY is that outside of the top handful of images, the rest is just a long-tail of noise. It is pretty random if one person liked your chaffinch vs your sparrow, say. Perhaps they got bored halfway down a huge list of birds and went and had their tea. So perhaps the POTY finalists deserve required inclusion, and perhaps someone could weight the selection to pick the FPs with the highest support at FPC, but in the end I'm not convinced the results of an (occasionally edited) random selection won't be just fine. And they are for sure likely to be far more varied than the personal selections being made currently. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That table shows the narcissism of some photographers, something that is not necessarily bad.`--Wilfredor (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
LOL --A.Savin 19:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
We shouldn't discuss on such a level. --XRay talk 10:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, I think we've seen in these threads that many people don't appreciate the implications for there being more than one FP promoted per day, and thus see nominating for POTD as just another step in the process. I don't think we need to assume it's because of a sense of self-importance/narcissism. I know this is true for me, anyway, with my meager number of POTDs. I usually forget about POTD, but once in a while I'll nominate a few not because I really want my pictures on the main page but because I feel like it's a step I've forgotten to do. That's silly, of course, since if everyone thought that way we would be increasing numbers of years out. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
There is that, of course, but having many FPs and POTD is also another way of competing on a forum without any other competitive element. That is perhaps inevitable on a forum which is so dominated by males. A while back, we had a discussion of the dominant Christian element on FP/FPC. I think that what should be of greater concern, is that there are so few women here. I'm used to such environments, and I've adapted somewhat to fit in, but even I choke from time to time on all the testosterone in discussions. A more balanced gender ratio might be better for the project. --Cart (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think there has for some here a degree of unthinking. Martin Falbisoner's funny comment above, and Rhododendrites explanation that they were following a process. For others, and their reactions, well there can be little other explanation than ego, a sense of entitlement, and lack of consideration for others. But we are where we are and the mood certainly seems to be now that it would be unfair to continue to promote images on the main page based anything other than the merits of the photo, and that a limited resource should be divided fairly. -- Colin (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I was being serious, actually. I’m really sorry! I didn’t consider the math here at all and so ended up behaving utterly selfish —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Martin Falbisoner I think the origin of this is my comment, I apologize and please ask that we focus on the subject. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Lack of representation

I have seen with concern that the number of photographs displayed in the image of the day (FPC too) generally comes from a vision of a man from a developed country, with little social representation of Women and the LGBT community. I would like to suggest that this type of photography be given more importance --Wilfredor (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an honorable thought, then again, if a woman doesn't adopt the male-of-developed-country vision of making/viewing photos, they will never pass the procedure at FPC and become FPs, so there is an inherent problem. --Cart (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Cart A rule could be created to take this factor into consideration when judging whether an image is "no wow", what I am looking for is a superior female participation. I have spoken with several women who do not feel interest in FPC because there is much harassment and inferior treatment towards them. This thread was created primarily because User:Rhododendrites comment. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes the tone at FPC is rather harsh and you really need to be a tough lady to stay there in the competitive atmosphere. I wouldn't say that women are treated badly at FPC, we are only treated just as bad as everybody else. The whole jargon is something between the schoolyard at a boy's boarding school and a military camp, not very appealing to most women. Photos that women take usually have plenty of wow, so that is no problem, but we tend to focus more on composition than technical details. When we use the technology it is usually to emphasize something through use of DoF or radical cuts for example, mostly no-nos at FPC. We also like to take photos of life and what's happening in it, which includes moving people and high ISO, something that is always punished at FPC due to the inevitable noise. Finally we tend to follow what's new in styles in the photography community. One very good example of this is contemporary food photography with cut plates and dishes in dynamic compos; that is always sneered at on FPC. So there are some thoughts for you. --Cart (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I must confess that I've toyed with the idea of having some kind of photo forum on Commons just for women, so that those women who feel intimidated by QI and FPC could have a chance to showcase their work and share photo experiences. But you know what Wilfredor, if you know some good women photographers, tell them to upload their photos and then come to see me on my talk page. Tell them that I'm a woman who's suvived QIC and FPC and knows how they work. I can give them some advice, tell them what to expect, look at their photos, chat and if I see something that I think has a chance at QIC or FPC, I'll simply nominate it myself and take the heat for it. After that we'll see how it goes. --Cart (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Dear Cart It is difficult to put on each other's shoes. Personally I had the great pleasure of forming groups of women to photograph (this was done in Venezuela), the group was 90% female. I have also been a personal friend of several women who have left commons and yes today I keep in touch with them (I cannot reveal their name for privacy reasons but I speak of several women some have opted for outstanding images on FPC and QIC). I have heard countless stories that I would find unbearable, however, they have remained a long time in commons until it simply became impossible to bear. Harassment, sexism, macho behavior. In real life I have many friends from the LGBT community, however, within commons I have not discussed this issue, I imagine it is something that also happens to a lesser extent. I really feel sad for all these people who have been so mistreated, it took me a while to understand the level of tension that women suffer here, however, someday we will be able to see this in their discussion pages. Maybe this subjet could be usefull for severals users but I don't know how to establish rules if they are not followed because they are not part of the culture of our "toxic community" (quoting @Jimbo Wales: ). Have you seen the low number of Afro-descendant users obtaining an FP? I think it is an extremely serious problem that should be treated more seriously. At the moment, how can we make this topic more visible so that other people can interact? I fully agree with your proposal to create a women's group --Wilfredor (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
On FPC, I really think that most users there simply don't care enough about Commons as a community to consider such issues. Most participants only care about getting their FPs, they don't have special agendas against women or anything like that, they are just careless and uninterested in any change. But like I said, any woman is of course welcome to my talk page and maybe something can grow from there. --Cart (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Cart Try to impersonate a woman for a few months and see the result, I've done it many times --Wilfredor (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Wilfredor, sorry, but I thought you knew: I AM a woman, and have been so for more than 60 years! If you don't believe me, ask Colin who has actually met me at a small Wiki-event. I don't need to impersonate one, and THAT is why I can speak with some experience on the matter here. --Cart (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Cart I must confess that I was a little upset with you for speaking on behalf of women but now everything makes sense. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Wilfredor, ok I'm glad we got that cleared up. So maybe now you can trust that I will take good care of any women photographers you (or anyone else) invite to come and see me on my talk page. --Cart (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It definitely makes better sense now. My friends are mainly LGBT people, but those who were interested in commons have completely withdrawn, I will try to contact them by messages to their emails to see if they are still interested in returning. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have a problem with claims of lack of representation that don't cite evidence. I also have a problem with pigeonholing people into categories, when there is often more variation within a group than there may be between the groups. There are a few separate angles: representation in the subject our photographs, representation in the concerns of photographers, representation of participants at FPC. Wrt the latter, Cart describes the issue well wrt women. Not sure there is a problem with other kinds of people-grouping (other than nationality), and hard to know as many people do not state. There are quite a lot of Germans!
I think there is a problem with "little social representation " of anything. It is quite odd that the world takes photographs of people whereas on Commons we almost do anything but. I had a look at PotD for 2019 (ignoring paintings and statues).
So for the 10 months, people are represented in only 5% of our PotD, which is really weird. But there seems quite a healthy spread of people kinds from a small dataset of 14 photos. -- Colin (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, Colin, that's where women photographers come in. As I said above, women often like to photograph life and people, but that pose a problem at FPC due to high ISO and noise. One reason I take photos involving people, is that as a woman it's easier for me to approach strangers and ask if I can take a photo of them. Or rather people mostly come up to me when I'm out and about taking photos, and many of them have even offered to pose for photos without me asking. Try doing the same if you are a middle-aged man with a big camera... So by having a women-friendly forum, you get both of more women behind the camera and people in front. --Cart (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it is more a matter of asking the person for permission before taking the picture. Here in Quebec it is illegal to publish a photo without the person being aware, also in Brazil, however in Venezuela it was not necessary. Some cultures are more reluctant to receive photographs especially of children in developed countries.--Wilfredor (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes and I think too much is made of our "Personality Rights" template, because personality rights is a US thing and not really any help in the UK if someone wants to make you the face of some political campaign or whatever. I think portraits do get a hard time on Commons. Perhaps we are so used to seeing photos of people, it takes more to get us to go wow. I agree we need more representation than from rich white western men, but I don't think we should beat ourselves up too much over it, because online photography and wiki are both over-represented by opinionated rich white western men. It is a problem to solve for sure, but it is a hard problem. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cart claims that 'Most participants only care about getting their FPs'. I try to get FPs, QIs and VIs for sure, but my main objective is improving the encyclopaedic content of English Wikipedia. Other users support other Wikis. I don't upload images just for the purpose of getting FPs. And Cart, I'm intrigued by your comparisons with the jargon at a boys' boarding school and a military camp. Swedish boys' boarding schools and military camps must be so very different from ours in the UK. Charles (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not long ago you wrote: "I will upload fewer widlife images of encyclopaedic value to Wikipaedia projects if the QI theshold is increased. Is that what the community wants?". Swedish boarding schools for boys are well described in Evil (novel), also made into a movie. The military camp I had in mind was the US Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where I've spent some time. A Swedish base would not have adequately prepared me for this environment. --Cart (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of nominations

Discussions

I propose a limit of two nominations per user per month. Also, a limit of two images per photographer per month. Otherwise, those of us who plan ahead will be accused of being too greedy. Pinging those who have already nominated images for 2021. Diego - I'm asking for opinions as you've taken up to 6 slots/month which I feel is too many! I know you have a huge range of subjects in your photos. @Poco a poco, Black Sickle, A.Savin, Kallerna, Uoaei1, King of Hearts, Seagull123, and Black Sickle: @Julian Herzog, Rhododendrites, XRay, Palauenc05, and Andrew J.Kurbiko: . Charles (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think, I agree. It sounds like a logical idea. I have about four nominations in 2021, mostly for holidays. Was really surprised how the entire 2020 was booked in advance. --Andrei (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I've sometimes more than two images per month, sure. The limit should be no problem, but free slots should be easier to find. Theoretically a photographer can have 12 new FPs per month. Some photographers have more than 24 images per year. What to do with a limit of 2 per month? Should we have a limit of FP per photographer? No, a bad idea. All the FPs should have enough free slots. And sometimes the images are using a special date. In this case the limit shouldn't be too hard. We should be happy about each FP and not build too many hurdles. --XRay talk 18:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
@Charles I agree. I'd actually like to see a maximum 1 photo per user per month. I find a bit off to plan more than a year ahead. I'd love us to be more flexible on this and give preference to newbies' FPs and things like anniversaries, current events, current FPs etc. Current situation makes it quite discouriging for new users as the first free slots are months or even years ahead. Also, in 2021 I'd like to see current FPs, not FPs from the same users a few years old. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We could decide that FPs for, say, 2021 must be nominations from 2019 or 2020 or even that images for 2021 should be from 2020. There is, as I guess most know, quite a backlog of FPs. 18:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So if an image becomes FP in 2019 and there is no free slot in 2019, 2020 or 2021, it can't be PoD. Really? I don't think that this is a good idea. --XRay talk 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this proposal as it punishes those who get a lot of images awarded FP. One more way, again, to demotivate those who contribute with most FP material. Poco a poco (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco This rule won't punish anyone. It'll the fair rule - same for everybody. Everybody gets the same opportunity without having to "prebook" a slot 2 years in advance. And I believe it's good for the project too to see more diversity and more recent photos. The main page belongs to everyone, it's not a personal gallery of a few users. It might also be motivating for new users to see their photos on the main page shortly after they've been awarded by their first FP star. And that's what we need to have - we need to support new FP contributors. I don't really see any negatives. We need to work towards making the project better and this is definitely an improvement. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes a photo would work really well for a particular anniversary, and we don't want to discourage someone from nominating a photo in 2019 when they want to get it on the main page in 2023. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts What I'm trying to say here is that it doesn't make much sense to me to have the main page prebooked such a long time ahead with photos from 2019 or older. In 2021, I'd like to see at least some photos from 2021 (and it's not me, I don't really mind but I'm thinking about our users). And, frankly, I think we'd manage to have that if we accept the rule of 1-2 photos per nominator per month. Plus additionally, we could eg. make a rule that "bookings" for the Main Page shouldn't be created further than 6 months ahead. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you explain: what is the point in priorizing recently promoted pictures? Why is a picture promoted few days ago per se a more appropriate POTD than a picture promoted three years ago. AFAIK, there is no "Best before" date for Featured pictures and I actually thought, a picture that fit well to the particular day is to be preferred? (Btw, here you have a good example from the last month, with a picture promoted back in 2010 [!]) --A.Savin 09:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin I think it just makes more sense to have current FPs on the main page rather than years and years old ones. At least a few of them each month. The same photos that we'll see in the POTY and so on. Photos from events that happened that year if we have any etc. The current system is blocking such an option. I'd like the main page to be more flexible, to be able to react on the current events/anniversaries with appropriate photos. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Any limit is fine with me. Happy to defer to those more active than I am at POTD for a precise number, perhaps in effect for 12 months to see how it goes? The restriction should be based on the photographer, though, not the nominator. Most of us who participate at FPC just nominate our own images for POTD, I think. It seems preferable for POTD diversity to have disinterested users make the selections whenever possible, and I wouldn't want to place limits on them unless there were objections to their selections. If we had people from outside FPC willing to curate POTD, I'd be happy to defer to them altogether to select from the pool of FPs (that's often the case at enwiki potd, for example, but not the case here, as I understand it). I don't think it makes sense to place restrictions based on year, though -- not sure what's gained by doing that. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rhododentrites.  Support a limit of 2 POTD/month per creator. Strongly  Oppose any limit of POTD per nominator. And strongly  Oppose any restriction on the timespan between promotion and the nominated date. --A.Savin 01:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree nearly.  Neutral for a limit of 2 or more per creator, strong  Oppose for a limit of 1, a limit per nominator and a time limit. --XRay talk 05:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that the creator of the file would not be able to submit a picture to POTD. That way we would get only the best content to the main page, and variability to the subjects. —kallerna (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no. Please not another voting or something else. FPs are the best content and every user (except IP-addresses) should be able to create a POTD. --XRay talk 08:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There was no voting implied with that, anyone could still nominate FPs. Pick the very best photo you can find and nominate it, just not your own. We are all partially blind when it comes to our own potos; that's why I'm always more confident when I nominate other photographer's photos at FPC. --Cart (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would really welcome any limit to make the front page with it's POTD less stagnant and boring. As I said in my vote below, I raised this subject three years ago with much of the same counter-arguments from the same users as here. Having diversity at POTD, is not just about having different subjects, it's also about displaying different photo styles. I think most of all at FPC can pick who made a photo before checking the signature. Even if some photographers think they have "a right" to many slots at POTD, due to their many FPs of different subjects, they are all shot in the same style. I would like to go even further and propose that we can't nominate our own FPs. We almost never see all the fantastic photos we get from newbies who contribute at WLM or WLE since they don't know how the system works. A stagnant front page hardly attracts or inspire new photographers to join the project. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of how disproportionate the system really is right now. As before Poco a poco feel he will be punished by this limitation given how many FPs he has. There are 12,979 FPs today, 656 of those are made by Poco, that is 5,05% of all FPs. He has been active here for 11 year and during that time we've had about 4,015 POTD. If we should let POTD be proportionate to the number of contributions, that would roughly make it 5,05% of 4,015 = 203 POTD or about 1,5 POTD per month for our highest contributor. Allowing for 2 POTD per month per contributor, is not punishing anyone; that is being generous. Btw, a Petscan has Poco at 605 POTD (including those he has scheduled). --Cart (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been active to Commons since April 2008, but I started contributing with HQ content in 2012, that's 7,5 years or 90 months, not 11 years. 4015 FPs in 11 years correspond to 2737 POTDs in 7,5 years. Those 656 FPs make 7,2 FPs/month which is significantly smaller than 2. So I "generate" in average 7,2 FPs/month but only 2 can make it to the POTD. That's for most of the users here no issue but it's a strong constraint to me. Poco a poco (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There is the huge backlog of FPs for POTD to consider too. --Cart (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • But ok, let's go with your dates and numbers. The number of POTD per month should not be the same as the number of FPs you generate per month, but how many FPs you generate in proportion to other FPs during the same months. Starting with 2012, which you say is the year you started with FPs, there have been 7,888 FPs in total so that would make your 656 FPs 8,3% of those. So proportionally you should have 8,3% of the 2737 POTDs in 7,5 years = 227,6 POTD or 2,5 per month. Thinking that all your FPs can be POTD is just not realistic. If we go by your numbers, you will be "punished" with 0,5 PODT per month, but since you have already exceeded you "would be quota" by about 370 POTD, I'd say that makes it even. Complaining about how 2 instead of 6-7 POTD is a "strong constraint" for you, how do you think that sounds to hundreds of users with FPs who will never get a POTD because you are hogging too many slots. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Correction: I had accidentally used the category with all Poco's FPs since it was that that was linked to his user page, my bad, the categories differ a bit. On Commons the numbers are 621 FPs and 606 POTD, so the calculations above are slightly off but in the same ballpark. --Cart (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info Just to get an idea of how balanced or unbalanced POTD is, or how well it represents FP, I went through regular nominators on the current FPC list and came up with this:
  • Famberhorst: 174 FP, 6 POTD
  • XRay: 175 FP, 165 POTD
  • Llez: 265 FP; 31 POTD
  • Moroder: 126 FP, 5 POTD
  • Hockei: 108 FP, 1 POTD
  • Ermell: 110 FP, 4 POTD
  • Milseburg: (no category for FPs)
  • Poco a poco: 621 FP, 606 POTD
  • Iifar: 142 FP, 40 POTD
  • Wilfredor: 124 FP, 22 POTD
  • Agnes Monkelbaan: 38 FP, 2 POTD
  • ArildV: 127 FP, 18 POTD
  • Benh: 57 FP, 18 POTD
  • George Chernilevsky: 75 FP, 70 POTD
  • W.carter: 103 FP, 4 POTD
  • Colin: 91 FP, 5 POTD
  • Alvesgaspar: 162 FP, 60 POTD
  • King of Hearts: 77 FP, 8 POTD
  • Michielverbeek: (no category for FPs)
  • Podzemnik: 97 FP, 35 POTD
  • Charlesjsharp: 188 FP, 92 POTD
  • Basile Morin: 137 FP, 2 POTD
  • Laitche: 81 FP, 25 POTD
  • Cayambe: 19 FP, 9 POTD
  • Martin Falbisoner: 137 FP, 137 POTD
  • Daniel Case: (no category for FPs)
  • Basotxerri: 56 FP, 3 POTD
  • Christian Ferrer: 128 FP, 27 POTD
  • Rhododendrites: 48 FP, 12 POTD
  • A.Savin: 139 FPs, 116 POTD
  • Uoaei1: 171 FP, 160 POTD
  • Julian Herzog: 46 FP, 7 POTD
  • Archaeodontosaurus: 144 FP, 30 POTD
  • Black Sickle: (no category for FPs)
  • Kallerna: (no category for FPs)
  • Palauenc05: 24 FP, 16 POTD
  • Code: 63 FP, 42 POTD
  • Jkadavoor: 103 FP; 97 POTD
  • Diliff: 306 FP, 51 POTD
Not a complete list, but it might shed some light on how POTD works. --Cart (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I added A.Savin (FPs, POTD) for transparency in this discussion. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Info I wanted to see what a POTD gallery without any of the regular POTD nominators photos would look like compared to what we have now. So to get a random selection I went to Commons:Featured pictures/chronological and started to pick one photo each from all recent FPs by new photographers with red-linked names, starting from now and moving backwards until I had 30 photos in the gallery. You can see the result here: User:W.carter/Experiment - POTD. For reference I put the actual gallery from POTD November 2019 at the top. --Cart (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at the 'opposes' below there seems to be some misconception that all FPs can be POTD. That is a logistic impossibility with the format we have today. On average we produce roughly 3 FPs/day and there is only 1 POTD slot/day. See statistics below at #Rethink how POTD is chosen. Disregarding the whole backlog, we would have to change POTD on the main page to POTDs just too keep up. Some selection has to be made. What do you think is best for the project: That a longtime POTD regular bags one more POTD to their collection, or that a new photographer with no POTD gets the encouragement of seeing their photo on the main page? --Cart (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • May be it's helpful: I'll set POTD in future (as before) for special dates and I'll respect a limit of 2 per month for new POTDs if possible. And additionaly I'll set only the FPs to POTD if there are at least 10 more support votes than contra votes. Hopefully this is a good self-restraint. May be others will follow this way. --XRay talk 12:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be a start. One suggestion I've made a below at the brainstorming, is to base selection on FP nom votes paired with placing at POTY to show the very best at POTD. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • And what if a picture that was promoted with 7s/3o fits very well into a certain date? Again, what is the point in making the pool of possible POTD's poorer? --A.Savin 14:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

---Please add new comments above this line---

Voting section

Can I propose a vote. @Poco a poco, Black Sickle, A.Savin, Kallerna, Uoaei1, King of Hearts, Seagull123, and Black Sickle: @Julian Herzog, Rhododendrites, XRay, Palauenc05, and Andrew J.Kurbiko: .

  • Charles, from what I recall, such long multi-pings don't work here on Commons. I think the maximum number of users in one ping is five. It would be better if you pinged them individually. --Cart (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

For a trial period of 12 months (covering years 2021 (and 2022) there is a limit of 2 nominations/month per creator on POTD

Those in favour

  • Let's not make everything more complicated than necessary. a) Of course the 2 POTD/month rule would apply only for future nominations from the timepoint the rule is established and written. b) Yes, regardless of who nominates -- otherwise, as you may guess, it would be easy for any two users to "swap" their POTD nominations and we once again can say goodbye to fairness and diversity. Nothing is impossible, alas. --A.Savin 15:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support A start, but personally, I don't think creators should nominate their own photos full stop. And Cart's maths is very interesting, suggesting some people here should find a healthier way to get motivated. Aren't we here to build a great free educational media repository and support Wikipedias? No Ego! -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support--Andrei (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support but IMO this proposal doesn't go far enough. I think it would be even better if images were selected for POTD more or less randomly. As it is there is clearly a huge gap in terms of how engaged various FP regulars are at POTD; compare Basile's 2/137 to XRay's 165/175. That's no one's fault, but allowing authors to nominate their own photos means that POTD will continue to be dominated by a small number of content creators. Instead we should be showcasing work from the full range of the authors we have here at FPC. Every FP has been chosen as one of the best of its kind by the community, so all FPs should be as suitable as each other to be featured on the main page. Complete randomness probably isn't suitable because we will want FPs relevant to particular holidays etc., and also we'll want to prevent there being too many similar pictures on consecutive days, but still, I think the process needs to be much more random than it is. Cmao20 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Those happy with the status quo

  •  Oppose Agree not to start deleting or moving existing POTD around and suggest to increase the limit to 5. Does the limit apply to a maximal amount of POTD by author? by nominator? by anybody else? Poco a poco (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I see no need for a change. It is important that there is a good mixture of topics in PODT, which is for me the case anyhow. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not specially happy woth the status quo, but... I myself putted (though no recently) my FPs "own works" as POTD, but also several times the images made by others. On the principle I find it quite complicated to have to check the other images.... indeed if in you want to set a POTD in a month where there is only one day still available, does it mean that you have to check the other 29 or 30 files to see if there are not already 2 images from the same creator??? boring and time consuming. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have probably a couple hundred images that have not been at PotD. With two a month, It would take around 20 years, minimum, just to catch up. I could certainly see a limit, but not a limit that's not just low, but which is substantially lower than the rate that FPs can get promoted, which, ignoring rule of the fifth day, is 6 a month, and 12 a month with. Now, we may not want to go that high, but surely such a small number compared to promotion rate being a problem is obvious. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • We have 12,990 FPs and PoTD has been running for 15 years. If we stopped producing any more FPs, it would take us 18.5 years to work through the backlog. Adam you don't seem to have an FP category but I calculate you have about 379 FPs and 27 PoTD leaving 352 undisplayed. You oppose a limit of 2/month because you were concerned it would take too long to display your backlog, nor would it keep up with a calculated max rate of 6-12 a month of future FPs from one user. But your average FP production rate is just over 2 a month, and your current PoTD rate is about 2 a year. Why do you support keeping the current system, which at the current rate you are being rewarded, would never keep up while you are active, and would take more than 200 years after you retire to display all your images, assuming there was still someone around to nominate them. We have to face the fact that only a tiny portion of most FPs will be displayed. -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I do not see problems with the situation "as is." Only once was the contingency with more than one POTD per month of my images (this happened because of the nominations of my works by two different users). And I agree with all other opponents --George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Those who are neutral, but with a PoV (= Point of View)

  •  Neutral But pictures already set as POTD should be still POTD. So the rule is only for new nominations. What's a PoV? And a consensus is neccassery, other contributers should be asked. --XRay talk 11:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • PoV means "point of view", in this case people with a slightly different view than clean yes or no. --Cart (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand that the rule is for existing nominations - since 2021. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. So my PoV: A new rule should be an improvement, not an obstacle. To have an image as FP is good for everybody, Commons, user, nominators and creators. A PoD should be an image depending on the date first, for example an anniversary. If there a five (just an example) anniversaries in a month and the only FPs for this anniversary are taken by the same creator, it's OK. All other PoD should be a FP independent from the date of creating or nominating. I'm not sure about a fixed limit, but it may be OK to try a limit of two image taken by the same creator. It should be much easier to propose an FP as PoD. IMO this is an obstacle especially for newbies, not the fact of more than two images of the same creator per month. Just a simple proposal: Create a form for PoD with proposed dates, the image, descriptions and links to suitable categories, gallery pages and Wikipedia links. --XRay talk 06:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

POTD number of nominations/user and how POTD is chosen

POTD number of nominations/user

Based on the voting and other comments, Can I suggest we have a consensus for change? We have 2/3 majority. [13 in favour out of 18]. Shall I alter the guidelines for nominations for 2020 2021 onwards? Any nominator should now withdraw any nominations over and above the 2/month limit. I would add to the guidelines that users should be encouraged to substitute any current candidates with sensible date-specific nominations and/or more interesting FPs (based on FPC vote count or POTY votes), while notifying the incumbent. Charles (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Start in 2021 is OK. IMO 2020 is to early. 2020 is starting next month. (Otherwise we can start in 2020 if already existing POTD will not be changed. Sometimes there are special dates are set and unnecessary discussions will follow.) --XRay talk 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Consensus was not achieved and 2020 is starting in 2 weeks. I'd rather favour a "soft rollout", with rules applying from now on for new POTD but I wouldn't support a hasty delete/move/rearrange of existing POTDs. Why the rush? who is taking care of it? are there any clear rules (x noms/month by author or by nominator)? Poco a poco (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
To me it looked like the original proposition was to start this in 2021 (you wrote: "Pinging those who have already nominated images for 2021."), I don't think you can go back on this and change the date now Charles. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I meant 2021. Nominations above 2/month should be removed for 2021. Sorry XRay Cart Poco a poco. Charles (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. I'd written a small bot to have a statistic for my PoTD. So I can respect the limit starting in 2021. --XRay talk 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes please, let's do it. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, go ahead with it, but please keep this discussion open at least until around 10 January 2020 since many users have other things to do over the holidays. --Cart (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Just for your information: I've checked my own rule for PoD, max 2 PoD per month, FP must have at least 10 more Pros than Contras. (And sorry for the current year, 2 per month was too late, but 24 for this year is OK. So let's have a look to 2021.) For me I changed from at least 10 more Pro votes to at least 80 percent Pro votes. For FP 66 2/3 percent is OK, for PoD it should be 80 percent. IMO 9 Pro and no Contra is good for PoD, 30 Pro and 20 Contra not. So it is better to work with 80 percent - and a limit of 2 per month. My rule fits with the proposal, the other rule is helpful to choose only the best FPs. --XRay talk 18:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

how POTD is chosen

Although we've not had a vote, there is a strong feeling that we shouldn't continue with the self-nomination system. Some sort of bot could be the answer. Can anyone suggest a way forward? Charles (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

January POTD should not be changed anymore, as some Wikipedia versions already have adapted them as their local POTD and we would produce a lot of mess when we decide to change them now. --A.Savin 16:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Already existing pictures shouldn't be changed. A new rule can only have an effect to new pictures. The propose was starting in 2021. --XRay talk 16:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I see no other way than that everyone nominates pictures themselves. Who knows all the anniversaries? Who makes sure that Christmas pictures are seen on Christmas? Or should all the anniversaries and public holidays proposed too? A big effort. --XRay talk 17:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If some kind of Bot system selects POTD in a random fashion, there should also be a sort of human overseer who tweaks/curates the POTD in a good way wrt special days, not two alike in a row and such. Seeing as some of these behind-the-scene tasks can be both tiresome in the long run and people might me discontent with the way that user is performing their assignment, it might be good to (s)elect that user for one year at a time. Request For POTY Curator similar to RFA? --Cart (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I read this whole discussion tonight. Based on the facts that have been brought forth, I agree with the idea of a bot selecting a proposed list of POTDs at random, but with some human supervision. For example, some of them might be really old FPs that seem a little weak, and those might reasonably be bumped in favor of something else. I think there's another proviso, though: Whoever is tweaking the results of the bot shouldn't be allowed to suggest their own photo in place of any selected by the bot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

New guidelines

Following the extended discussion above I have altered two pages:

Commons:Picture of the day
As of 1 January 2021, Pictures of the day are chosen from Featured pictures of Commons. Featured pictures are the finest images on Wikimedia Commons and are selected by consensus on Commons:Featured picture candidates. Pictures of the day should be selected from images that were strongly supported during the nomination process. For instructions on how to add a Picture of the Day, see Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions.

Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions

Steps to add a picture
I added
If you have a choice of images, choose an image which had strong support during the nomination process.
There is a limit of two images/month per user, either originator or nominator (starting from January 2021)


I realise that other users may may to tweak my wording, but hopefully this is a start. Charles (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notifying those involved in the discussion Podzemnik XRay Cart Poco a poco Ikan Kekek A.Savin Colin WilfredorRhododendrites Martin Falbisoner

Charles, when you try to 'ping' someone, the name/mention has to be done in the same edit as your signature. Since you signed this post in one edit and then mentioned all the users in another edit, the notification system didn't set in and none of us got a 'ping'. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks Notifying those involved in the discussion Podzemnik XRay Cart Poco a poco Ikan Kekek A.Savin Colin WilfredorRhododendrites Martin Falbisoner Charles (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I still didn't get the ping, for some unknown reason but I just saw the link for this on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. I'm not sure I fully understand the system. The procedure is for individuals to add whatever images they choose, with the one hard limitation being that they can't add more than 2 photos per month that they either shot or nominated at FPC, right? And the suggestion to favor images that had stronger support at FPC is just a strong suggestion, because it would be hard to create an enforceable formula. But it looks like each individual would add photos without there being any kind of second opinion about them before they are featured as Picture of the Day? So is it the case that the only real change is the 2-photo maximum, or is there another important change? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A newcomer's thoughts

I have never been interested in POTD so far and have just experimentally entered an image - simply on a free date. Is it really the case that you can simply enter yourself there? This is not really an award. Is there no forum where the selection of images for the individual days is discussed? I read that a lot of thought has already been given to a change. I think an improvement is needed. Perhaps it is possible to automatically create a varied selection via the FP categories and also to take into account the number of pro voices that the image had at FPC. --Milseburg (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you really can enter any FP you like to a day, it is not an award and there are no discussions. I thought the same when I was a newbie, since the star has a "beauty pageant winner's ribbon". Very misleading. As you can see from the long discussion above, this has led to some strange things to say the least. Hopefully a big change will be made in time. The "only two noms per month" is just a tiny ant crawl on the way to something better. --Cart (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Standards

I don't want a bare breasted anything on my sceen when I land on the Commons homepage. Have some standards and respect--عبد المؤمن (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@عبد المؤمن: And you, please have some respect for cultures where people traditionally live bare breasted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Let them do as they please, but don't force it down my throat. I'm on an encyclopedia not a site for nudity.--عبد المؤمن (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Who forces you to visit Wikimedia Commons? --jdx Re: 23:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:Main Page. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Scope of Commons is to collect images for other Wikimedia projects, it's not a photo competition. Desert or beach panorama number 735 may be nice to look at, but adds nothing of value to Commons. On the other hand, an image of a rare flower or bird does, even if it may be not a technically perfect photo. Commons should show on its main page that it follows its scope, not worship pictures that no one is using. Looking at recent VI no one can claim that this would be a step back in quality of the photos.<
Alternatively, two photos of the day should be shown: one to please the Lightroom and Photoshop nerds and one made by people who work for the scope of the project. They deserve to be recognized prominently, too.--Chianti (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Support--shizhao (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 Support--Broichmore (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Most featured pictures ARE within the scope of the project. Desert and beach panoramas can be used on articles about those places. That said, I'm not against valued images being eligible for POTD, but there are a lot of them that don't deserve to be on the front page qualitywise. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 Neutral I would support maybe a Wacky Wednesday approach where on Wednesday we use different rules. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 Support--Definitely not a photo contest; should be useful, beautiful, versatile images too. ɱ (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • POTD was never a photo contest, you'll see lots of photos here which are more informational than pretty. FPs on Commons are a lot less "pretty" than what you'd find on social media. That said, I'm open to the idea of having VIs as POTD. Just not ones like this. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't being literal! ɱ (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding! It's hard to tell sometimes when you can't see the other person's body language and tone. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Captioning guidelines

I have asked a question on Commons:Village_pump#POTD_captioning_guidelines that people who have this page on their watchlist may wish to weigh in on. Storkk (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominations of multiple images of a FP set as POTD

Hello, we have today File:Covid-19 San Salvatore 05.jpg on the main page as POTD taken from this FP set: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/COVID-19 photo portraits. My first question here: is the common practice? can you choose just one picture from the set and make out of it a POTD although only the set and not necessarily each of them is a FP? Is that the solution for a set with regards to POTD? Secondly, next month we have the next image of the set on the main page, File:Covid-19 San Salvatore 08.jpg. IMHO that is a bad idea. The set is FP, not each of the images included in it. @Andrew J.Kurbiko: was that a conscious edit? Poco a poco (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, it was. Why do you think that it is a bad idea? It is a diverse set of photos, and they are not repetitive. From what I know, there is no specific regulation regarding this issue. Next month has only one human portrait, but two German churches (and four churches in total). --Andrei (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • How else would FPs in sets be displayed on POTD if not one by one? I can't recall us having multiple individual photos as POTD (other than composites). Or do you reason that sets should be excluded from POTD on the technicality that they contain more than one photo? During voting, it's usually said for sets that each photo must be an FP by itself, one bad photo and the set doesn't get promoted. To me that indicates that it's ok to pick one photo from a set and use it as a standalone FP. --Cart (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata item

The WikiData item wikidata:Q6998859 links back to Category:Pictures of the day. On at least the English Wikipedia, it links to the actual equivalent of Commons:Picture of the day, namely, en:Wikipedia:Picture of the day.

Long-time contributor XRay changed the WikiData entry from this project page to the category on April 28, 2020 with this edit.

XRay - do you have any objections to changing it back? Davidwr (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I remember, it was a difficult decision. I didn't know how to connect to the category (for the Wikidata Infobox). IMO both entries should be possible and the infobox at Category:Pictures of the day should be displayed correct. --XRay 💬 19:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The edit was reverted. Hopefully OK. --XRay 💬 20:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Flickrwashing of POTDs

Hi all, I found this Flickr account that has been reposting POTDs. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

[cross-posted from Commons:Village pump] replacements for deleted PotDs?

Some of the early PotDs (mostly from 2007 and earlier) were deleted due to copyright concerns. I know Commons is much better at detecting copyright violations nowadays, but having missing pictures of the day makes us look bad.

Would it be a crazy idea to retroactively nominate new PotDs to replace the deleted ones? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the benefit to it. What looks worse, a few missing images or trying to rewrite history to pretend they never existed? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

calendar

@Tacsipacsi: The calendar is now pushing the POTD box down when it really should be at the top (This is COM:POTD after all). The text is also flowing oddly because of it. I don't really see the problem with the language box you mentioned, it doesn't appear that different from how the page was before the Translate extension. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: It may be because we use different browsers—I have Firefox 78.13.0esr (it has only “basic support” from MediaWiki, but readability is included in basic support, which is broken here). However, a more basic question: do we need the calendar in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Couldn’t we just drop it? —Tacsipacsi (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi: It's because POTD/MOTD switch based on UTC time, not on local time, which has apparently caused some confusion in the past. I think probably the cleanest solution would be to move the current date into {{Potd}} (hidden by default).
Picture of the day
19 December 2024
Nepali grandmother while preparing food in a traditional kitchen
+/− [en]
صورة اليوم
١٩ ديسمبر ٢٠٢٤
Nepali grandmother while preparing food in a traditional kitchen
+/− [ar], +/− [en]

--AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: I see. Your sandbox version looks good, although I think it’s still more confusing than the current separate date box (“okay, okay, this is the POTD of 25 August, but why don’t I see the POTD of today, 24 August/26 August?”). However, if you think it’s okay, I’m not against it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I've implemented it. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day/Archive_3&oldid=605215334"