Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Peter Paul Rubens - The Fall of Phaeton (National Gallery of Art).jpg The Fall of Phaeton
Fumigènes dans une manifestation parisienne (2008.11.13)-Romanceor.jpg Smoke grenade
VST images the Lagoon Nebula.jpg Lagoon Nebula 3...Try try but don't cry ‎


Shortcut:

Please consult the original author if an edit is needed[edit]

I participated in this DR recently and opposed the deletion per the prevailing policies. But after discussing with the original author (not much as he is not a native English speaker) and reading the relevant discussions, I see some communication problems that affected our decisions. The author is a subject expert and we didn't contact him. We didn't contact the relevant project too. I discussed this matter with my colleagues in the same stream, and they too raise a similar concern. Biopics seems very disappointed (not only due to this matter alone); and expressed that "New and more images moved to Flickr".

I think this matter needs our attention as a generic way (for future cases) and we need to consult relevant people in case of any doubts. Jee 09:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Although this may be (and probably is) good practice, I don't quite feel comfortable with making it a prerequisite for nominations. The CC license essentially removes any requirement to get an author's permission before reusing an image, and thus there would be little license-based reasoning for requiring permission or notification for an FPC nomination. That being said, FAC does require permission be obtained, but there are fundamental differences between the two, not the least being that prose is constantly being polished, whereas many flaws with images cannot be fixed without retaking the image entirely (and thus, it is possible that an article writer is still working on something). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes; I agree with the legal side (and that is why I oppose the DR); but in COM:FPC also we faced similar situations. Usually the author has access to the raw files and his possibilities are unlimited compared to us just with a processed jpg. It is understood that JPG quality decreases on every save and a compressed JPG has several limitations. If the author is not available or not willing for an edit, we have no other options. In all other cases I prefer first contacting the original author.
On the licensing part, Commons discourage claiming credit for minor edits by our volunteers and some authors don't like their credits shared. It is a different matter and I personally have no problem with it. :) Jee 11:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not in favor of new regulations. But it is good to remember the unwritten rules of courtesy. Often a small prior message and a little patience to wait for the response, sufficient to avoid situtions, painful for all. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, then, a recommendation (i.e. non-binding) in the introduction template. Personally I've avoided informing photographers as I want to avoid the appearance of canvassing, but I understand why some would rather be told. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this is most sensible advice. Whether some regulation is needed I don't know. But it is clear from the WP:FP nom that a group of amateurs have ruined a scientifically correct picture and promoted the wrong one to FP status. That they didn't consult the creator just shows arrogance imo. Now the creator is upset that he can't remove the incorrect version because some people are putting rules in front of common-sense and has left the project. I think the first thing WP:FP should do is delist the incorrect one and consider replacement with the correct one. -- Colin°Talk 13:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Alitta succinea (epitoke form) -- Colin°Talk 13:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't support the way Bp handled it (edit warring on the file and try to get it deleted). See Commons can't delete a file when it is in use in another project. It seems he is very weak in communication. I had to dig all previous discussions to get a clue. He should have discuss it here. Anyway now it seems we are on the right track. Jee 14:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes there are language issues and also not everyone knows the procedures. However, the DR treated the image like Commons was merely a repository of all free content so "unable" to delete a file that was derived legitimately from a CC licensed file. What Commons and Wikipedia forgot was the primary purpose is to be educational. Having a nicer-looking colour balance was irrelevant, and if the image is misleading when we have a perfectly good alternative image, it should certainly be deleted. And I think that should hold regardless of whether some Wikipedia uses it. The "In use so in scope" argument is overused. -- Colin°Talk 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we can delete it when removed from the article. Some people have a non hate to any adaptation that we can't encourage (not talking about this case). Jee 15:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that consultation of the original photographer is good practice when issues of colour accuracy or similar are encountered (there have been a few situations where others have decided there was something 'wrong' with my images without really knowing for sure)... That being said, in my opinion there is a clear colour tint to the (original) image in question and I don't really think the wrong image was necessarily promoted. I don't claim to know what the animal looks like, but I can see that the reflections in the sand (?) have a particularly warm colour cast and this is a reflection (literally) of the light source, and has no bearing on the colour of the animal. We can't know for certain what colour the sand was, but I suspect it is close enough to neutral. Consider also the translucent 'feelers' at the front. From my (albeit limited) experience, these are usually also a neutral greyish colour. I'd certainly welcome a debate over the issue if the original author disagrees with the replacement, but there are so many factors that can influence one's opinion on colour on a computer screen and I suspect the photographer was perhaps unaware of the warm tint. Perhaps his screen is badly calibrated?! If the animal was lit with a particularly warmly lit light when he studied it, perhaps even the photographer's intuition of the true colour of the animal was skewed sufficiently? So many posibilities. I don't doubt that the author believes it looks more like the original image, I just have strong suspicions that with more balanced 'daylight' lighting conditions, it wouldn't look so red-shifted. Just my opinion. I don't think the deletion request was handled very well though - both sides seemed unprepared to discuss the real issue. The photographer insisted the image's colour was wrong, and the others insisted that Wikipedia had a right to make it whatever colour we wanted. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I too have a doubt; but the author made an update recently. Considering we provoked him, I see little chance for any further help from his side now. An author uses his "no attribution right" is an extreme case and we should avoid such circumstances if possible. :) Jee 07:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
But the derivative work has two authors: the creator of the original image and the user making the derivative. Even if we accept the overwriting of the file by the author, in this the other authors consent would still be needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The attempt to overwrite the "wrong colour" file and the deletion request both failed WP/Commons procedures and can be viewed as clumsy/inexperienced-with-proceedure. However, the edit war that resulted combined with literally hitting the expert over the head with the rulebook was no way to deal with it and I can see why he is pissed off. If instead someone had firstly stated our appreciation of expert opinion and secondly given the kind of reasoned argument Diliff made we might have come to some agreement. I think a lesson learned for WP and WP:FP is that the colours of a "photograph of a specimen" are important and shouldn't be changed merely because CC BY-SA lets one do what one likes with the image. Anyone who has edited contentious subjects in WP will know that we defer to published expert writing. For images we don't have that luxury with user-generated photos, but I'm quite happy to defer to this published expert when it comes to the colours of marine species. You know the old joke "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad". Too much wiki-knowledge and not enough wisdom and respect. -- Colin°Talk 08:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Armbrust, I talked about the update on the "original work"; not about the "war" on the adapted. Jee 09:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for miss-reading. I have seen that too BTW, and didn't revert it at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused, because having researched the issue a little more, I noticed that the image that Jee linked to (the update on the original work) doesn't contain (in any of the image upload history) the version that Biopics disputes the accuracy of, and in fact he 'updated' the image with an identical copy. Also, we never, as far as I can see, uploaded the 'WB edit version' over the top of Biopic's original. In the FPC nomination, the WB edit was uploaded as a new image. So actually, Biopics was attempting to overwrite the derivative, not trying to 'correct the original file'. Also, I note that I commented on the warm tint back in 2010. ;-) I had completely forgotten that I even participated in the original nomination. In any case, this has nothing to do with which WB edit is most accurate, but it does put into perspective what happened here. I still think that we should have engaged with Biopics about what we believed was wrong with the colour balance and he probably should have engaged more with us also, but procedurally, I don't think we made any mistakes in handling it as a derivative... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I disagree with the way Bp handled it. He should have discuss it here or in the article talk page or boldly revert those articles. Instead, he tried to overwrite the existing FP that people reverted. Angrily he made a DR. Then only I noticed this issue and I opposed the DR. Then I saw he removed the attributions. I tried to understand the issue, reading all those fpcs.
My understanding is that his original work is a double VI as the best Alitta succinea image and Epitoky in in Polychaeta. We neglected that fact, made an adaption, and named it "colour balance version" which may provoked him. (He re named it recently.) As a biologist, his works are highly referenced even off wiki, and stating his version as a "wrong color balance" may be an insult to him. That said, I have a difficulty to understand what is in his mind, as he is not very talkative. :)
"but procedurally, I don't think we made any mistakes in handling it as a derivative..." - I think there is a mistake if we handle scientific matters unprofessionally. I remember a case where we promoted a shell picture as our best picture which was a "cut specimen". Invertzoo from WikiProject Gastropods made a complaint on our talk page that we neglected. He came back with a delist and we accepted it. After that I usually report on that project when a nomination seen here. Jee 11:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, we probably should have consulted him when the initial colour balance issue was raised in the FPC nomination. But I think sometimes the problem is that being an expert in a particular scientific field doesn't also make you an expert on colour theory ;-). I have no doubt that he's more qualified to know what the true colour of this animal is, but that doesn't mean he's aware of the issues (already mentioned above) that could affect his perception of the image on a computer screen. Just as biologists cannot 'see' DNA, they have a body of knowledge and experiments that can prove that it exists and how it works. Likewise, we as photographers and 'image experts' (an exaggeration, but certainly more qualified than the average amateur photographer) have a body of knowledge and methods that can determine and intuit colour issues. In any case, there is no absolute right or wrong with colour balance as we can only ever approximate what our eyes see. Even our eyes can be deceived easily enough. And then there is the issue of whether we should strive for colour neutrality or for what our eyes see, even if it's not strictly 'neutral'. For example, if we take a photo of a grey object at sunset, should it be warm-tinted as our eyes would see it, or should it be corrected to be truly grey? These are artistic questions as much as scientific ones. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly as in some recent COM:FPs. :) Jee 12:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any "probably" about whether WP should have consulted the author. In fact I find it quite rude that an image can get a nomination here without the author being informed and certainly when the image provokes any dispute the author should be alerted. I agree with Diliff that just because someone is talented at their scientific field doesn't mean they are talented at taking photographs accurately but that is certainly something that a conversation would have solved. And ultimately if we can't agree then we should respect expert opinion. But Diliff, I suspect very few participants at WP:FP have colour calibrated monitors, are aware that colours aren't rendered accurately in web browsers compared to professional tools like Photoshop or Lightroom, know the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB colourspaces and are aware what happens when a JPG lacks colourspace metadata or embedded colour profile. I should note that the original file had original camera EXIF data including colourspace information, whereas the edited one had virtually no EXIF data other than to show it was edited by Paint.NET -- a tool that in my opinion should only be used to edit screenshots and certainly not featured picture photographs. So the edited file actually was technically ill-formed wrt colour accuracy from a JPG point of view, never mind colour accuracy from the subject point of view. We screwed up a scientific image by amateur edits with an amateur tool. -- Colin°Talk 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, a new Commons deletion discussion is here. -- Colin°Talk 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

The FPC urgents is currently full of things with 3 or 4 supports, no opposes, and which will likely fail if people don't vote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And we've now cleared all but one out of FPC urgents. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And we're back to the same state as previous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture for 4 April[edit]

I can't find any way to edit the associated text for this group of 4 pictures by William Russell Flint. This is necessary because the article until a few minutes ago had incorrect information about his education. According to Oxford Art Online, he studied at the Royal Institute of Art, Edinburgh, not the Royal Academy of Art(s) in London. (And beware, Royal Institute of Art should not be wikilinked because that article describes an institution in Stockholm.) Colonies Chris (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Crisco hasn't linked me yet, but I'll make sure to fix this once he does. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You've never linked me to any of the 4 April images, just March 30 and April 1. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Never mind, just missed it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I didn't use the template as there were four images in one. My apologies, it looks like the "add 1" comment was on my talk page, regarding the 30 March images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture urgents[edit]

FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Peter Paul Rubens - The Fall of Phaeton (National Gallery of Art).jpg The Fall of Phaeton
Fumigènes dans une manifestation parisienne (2008.11.13)-Romanceor.jpg Smoke grenade
VST images the Lagoon Nebula.jpg Lagoon Nebula 3...Try try but don't cry ‎


I really shouldn't say which one, outside that it's not one of mine, but I had honestly been hoping to use one of the images in FPC urgents as the lead for the signpost report on featured pictures in a couple weeks, to the point of not featuring another image, but it's hovering at just under the five vote minimum, with no opposes. Can people please have a look at the urgents? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Old FPs[edit]

I recently discovered that File:Entacmaea quadricolor (Bubble tip anemone).jpg had been missed for POTD (images promoted in the same week were run in 2012) and have scheduled it. If contributors here are aware of any older FPs (i.e. those promoted before 2013) which have not run at POTD, please contact me. I might have to dredge the FP thumbs page to catch some of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: File:Mitra stictica 01.JPG was promoted in 2012, but never was a POTD (probably due to a mistake deletion on Commons). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FP and article text disagree[edit]

If a FP disagrees with the article text, it does not have Encyclopedic value, and either it or the article is not verifiable.

Why was rhe picture promoted while failing both 5 and 6 of the criteria?

5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.

It confuses the reader to have a diagram that contradicts the text.

6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.

It is not supported by the facts in the article if it has different facts.

Why would a FP be promoted under these circumstances? Diagram of Jupiter is either using sources not used by the article or it is OR. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

  • I suggest you point out the discrepancy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
For starters, "The core is often described as rocky, but its detailed composition is unknown, as are the properties of materials at the temperatures and pressures of those depths (see below).... A core may now be entirely absent, because gravitational measurements are not yet precise enough to rule that possibility out entirely.[31][34]" While the diagram shows a "rock and ice core."
The particulars can be discussed on the article talk page.
There appears to be a serious problem with the meaning of consensus for promoting FPs, though. "Consensus" on en.Wikipedia does not mean "majority rules." --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC))

Minimum image size[edit]

I was wondering... does anyone feel as if the minimum image size should be at least 1,500 pixels in either dimension, rather than in both dimensions? We currently ask for more than Commons, and some really nice FPs are below 1,500 pixels in one dimension (File:Hylobates lar - Kaeng Krachan WB.jpg, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it's generally understood that our requirements are tougher than Commons (although Commons voters are more nit-picky and arbitrary in their critiques, IMO!). We discussed 1500px in either vs both dimensions back in 2012 and decided that 1500px on the shortest dimension is the minimum, and I agree with it, personally. However, an allowance was written into the guidelines so we can still make an exception in certain circumstances and I think JJ's image would probably be one of them. It's only 60 pixels short of 1500, and is pixel sharp as he always downsamples his images. Not that I necessarily think he should, but it's his choice. Anyway, his image is a case in point, it got promoted despite being slightly below the requirements, because it was fundamentally a very solid shot and was more detailed than many images over 1500px. But to lower the bar sends the wrong message IMO. Better to keep the bar high and make the occasional exception than to lower it... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)