Commons talk:Featured pictures

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured pictures.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1

cemeteries

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

Lithobates catesbeianus featured ?

Hi,

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

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

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

About FP pictures of Wilfredor

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

• I see no reason for you to withdraw any FPs that are genuine images, or genuine images with the usual edits that we all do. I would just apologise on the delist nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am 100% with Charles. Wilfredo, you have many wonderful and (I hope ;–)) authentic photographs. Demoting all of them would mean an important loss for our featured pictures. What I would ask you instead: Please check your featured pictures one by one. Are there more of them which were created artificially or were manipulated heavily? If yes, then please list these photos (and only these) here and we can discuss how to proceed with them. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I was reviewing and found two where there are major alterations, the first is this where you can see in the history of the photo the alteration from the beginning, also in this other photo I added on the guitar a photo of a baby that the same subject in the photo showed me. Also this photo in which I added a bull (see file history) and a bullfighter that were present that same day in that same bullring a few minutes before in another photo. In some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way. Except for this nomination made a few years ago, today I always try to be sincere with my alterations, an example was this nomination where I explain and even upload the original image without alteration --Wilfredor (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The bull is irrelevant as it wasn't there when image submitted for FP. It looks as is the homeless man image should be withdrawn as the added baby sticker (although small) is not OK. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you this was not ok not to have mentioned it but my intention was not to hide it but to honor the person's baby, in the history you can see the first image without the baby Wilfredor (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Disagree, no need for such a drama. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)