Commons talk:Featured picture candidates
Add topic
FPCBot asking for help
[edit]
The gallery link Animals/Shells#Family : Camaenidae in the nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papustyla pulcherrima 01.jpg does not point to a valid section on Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells. (The section after the # in a gallery link is valid if and only if it corresponds letter for letter to a subheading which is immediately followed by a <gallery> element.) Therefore one or more new featured pictures are added to the Unsorted section of Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells. Please sort these images into the correct section. Thank you! / FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Llez, could you please take care of your photo and fix this. Thank you! --Cart (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Today's picture of the day
[edit]I wonder whether it should really be allowed that today's Picture of the Day is taken by a banned user who has run numerous sockpuppet accounts. It's not a very good picture anyway, and it doesn't seem right that it is being used to advertise the best of what Commons has to offer. I'm not necessarily saying Livio's pictures should be delisted if they were promoted validly, but to promote them in this way seems a bit far. Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- I share the concern about this POTD; personally, I also find the image weak and question its suitability. Regarding Livio's "legacy", given the subsequent bans, sockpuppet accounts, and related controversies, his work's promotion is certainly problematic. However, this specific image was promoted to FP before those scandals occurred. As noted in the February 2023 deletion discussion (see nomination), the community debated its fate, but the decision was ultimately to keep it. That context is important: at the time, the file's FP status reflected its quality evaluation before any later controversies. Since the previous deletion discussion has been closed, any concerns would need to be raised through a new formal deletion request if that is deemed appropriate. These are just my two cents; honestly, I'm a bit uncertain about the best course of action in this situation. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the images should be deleted, that would be a very silly decision that would harm the project. But I am not sure they should remain FP and continue being promoted in our galleries and on POTD as the best Commons has to offer. Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that deletion would be the wrong approach, but I also share your concern about keeping these files as FPs and using them in POTD. Removing FP status seems like the most balanced solution - keeping the files available without continuing to promote them as the best Commons has to offer. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I get the concerns, but IMO if the situation is severe enough that it shouldn't appear in POTD, it should just be delisted. Otherwise there's nothing to keep someone from adding it to the POTD queue again later. Whether to delist is really the only thing under the strict purview of FPC, too. A proposal to discount banned users' work from POTD would probably need to go to e.g. the village pump (and then we get into thorny stuff like work uploaded by now-banned mass uploaders). I don't think I'd support that (and don't know if I'd oppose), though. The penalty for the ban is no further uploads, but anything promoted legitimately should qualify for POTD. If the quality isn't good, that's another reason to delist, but if it's just less-good than other FPs, we're getting into subjective judgments that I'm a little uneasy with measuring for the purposes of selecting POTD. — Rhododendrites talk | 21:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Rhododendrites here, it's a very messy thing to detangle work by discredited users/photographers from FP and POTD. It's a bit like the debate outside the wiki-verse about if music by disgraced artists should be played and listened to. I think the smoothest way would be to challenge potential POTDs before they get published, perhaps explain the situation to the users who proposed the PTOD and suggest other, better, photos. --Cart (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- I share Cmao20’s uneasiness about this POTD, but I was partially reassured when I checked that User:Nheyob who nominated that image as POTD is not related at all to Livio. Nheyob just proposed an apt image for the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, an understandable and likeable idea, and probably was not aware that the photographer is a notorious cheat. So IMHO this is just a somewhat unfortunate selection for the POTD, especially when we consider (as mentioned by Cmao20) that there are better photos … Similar to Rhododendrites and Cart, I would not advocate a delisting of Livio’s/Commonists’/… FPs. This was discussed right after the discovery of the cheating, some carefully selected FPs were demoted, and the rest was kept. So IMHO the laborious, but apt way to cope with this problem is that from time to time we check the proposed POTDs for the next months and contact the nominators if we find some problematic nominations. This way we can also challenge POTDs which are questionable for other reasons, e.g. if somebody proposed fascist etc. propaganda images as POTD. – Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Rhododendrites here, it's a very messy thing to detangle work by discredited users/photographers from FP and POTD. It's a bit like the debate outside the wiki-verse about if music by disgraced artists should be played and listened to. I think the smoothest way would be to challenge potential POTDs before they get published, perhaps explain the situation to the users who proposed the PTOD and suggest other, better, photos. --Cart (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Two almost identical FPs – delist one of them?!
[edit]These two FPs are almost identical:
 |
 |
Both were taken by User:Richard Bartz, both (cf. the Exif data) at the same date and time: “13:07, 8 May 2008”, so I guess this is actually one and the same photo and the difference is just that (2) was edited by User:Crassic, today called User:Ræve. When version (2) was nominated, nobody referred to (1) or to the original nomination of (1).
IMHO we should delist one of the two FPs. Which one? Please comment which version you would delist (or if you would keep both FPs). If we find something like a common opinion, I will create a delisting nomination. Thank you very much, – Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delist (1): it is slightly underexposed, and all in all (2) is better. In addition the nomination of (1) is quite confused, includes questionable things like votes by anonymous users, and does not fulfill today’s standards, so also from a procedural point of view (2) is the more solid candidate. – Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Aristeas, and for your thoughtful consideration of both versions. I would support delisting version (1). As you mentioned, version (2) is the more polished image, with the additional editing enhancing the original. The slight underexposure in (1) further strengthens version (2) as the more compelling FP. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- (2) as an edited version I find critical, since on the one hand the source is not correctly indicated and on the other hand the editor as quasi co-author is not sufficiently named. Technically and aesthetically, however, (2) is better. --XRay 💬 13:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the hint, XRay – you are right, the description of the edited version was insufficient and even misleading (at least when compared with today’s standards). I have taken the liberty to edit the description in order to bring it up to standard. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Aristeas: Delist (1), Keep (2). Yann (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Aristeas. 1 is clearly the inferior of the two. Cmao20 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Radomianin, XRay, Yann, and Cmao20: Thank you very much for your input! OK, I have nominated version (1) for delisting; please consider to vote on the nomination. Thank you and all the best, – Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Picture of the Year categories: everyone's help is welcome!
[edit]Dear FPC users,
As you all know, all featured pictures end up participating in the Picture of the Year yearly contest.
POTY 2024 is starting soon (15 September 2025) and multiple images are actually miscategorized. Some work is being done to spot images needing recategorization but spotting all of the images is not easy.
So please feel free everyone to have a look at all the POTY 2024 categories and to report on this POTY talk page any miscategorized image that you might spot.
Thank you in advance for your help and wishing everyone a beautiful day!