Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured picture candidates.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
candidate list

Crediting photos and images on Wikipedia[edit]

This is a copy of part of a discussion that originated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. The discussion got out of topic and it can continue here instead. --Cart (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment For those who would want to see photos better credited on Wikipedia, I occasionally come across that on the Norwegian Wiki, [1] [2] [3]. It's not done on every image, so I don't know what their policy for this is, but it's worth a look. I think it looks very professional, and it doesn't disturb the article. I don't know if there are other Wikis with this practice. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Interesting – thank you, Cart! I have never seen this in other Wikipedia editions. I guess most of our photographers would appreciate this kind of attribution very much, but maybe not all Wikipedians would like that idea … Of course we normally argue that attribution of individual images is not necessary in Wikipedia articles. But the absence of any attribution in Wikipedia may contribute to the misunderstanding of many re-users of images that “Wikipedia images” are public domain. If we would attribute all photos in Wikipedia articles in this unobtrusive manner, more people could learn that not all “Wikipedia images” are PD, but that they must be attributed properly. – Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was worth mentioning. It could be optional, and you might toy with the idea that professional photographers might be more inclined to donate some of their images to a CC license if they were credited in this way. There are arguments to be had both pro and con. --Cart (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a good page on enwiki arguing for photo captions here: en:Wikipedia:Image_citation. I think if enwiki in particular is going to buy-in, it's going to be on the basis of verifiability, citing sources, and providing information without the need to go to a sister site. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These day with all the AI-generated images and fake news, I think that in some cases it can help the article, if the reader immediately sees that the image comes from a trusted photographer, a museum or a photographer affiliated to some institution, without having to click away to get that info. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have always wanted that on enwiki, just because I like checking for photographer names and I don't like clicking to do it. It's nice for verifiability reasons. The way Norwegian Wikipedia does it is nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the idea is nice, however if hardly anyone maintains it and as a result some pictures are attributed correctly, some incorrectly and some not at all, that's definitely not nice in the end, and I would say better let it be completely. IMHO --A.Savin 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it's what would happen; and already is happening at the Norwegian Wiki. I think they try to go by the letter of the CC license and actually credit the photographers, and failing just like A.Savin says. So in the end we on the WikiProjects are/would be just as sloppy and inaccurate as everyone else using our photos, yet we are the ones throwing stones here. I regard any photo I upload on Commons as a "lost" photo, and I live with it (like Korda did). It's always interesting to see where my photos turn up, and I'm not losing any sleep over if my name is on it or not. So many of my designs and artistic ideas have been stolen over the years, and if you don't let go of it, you will go crazy and bitter. I give this as my advice to Diliff and others. If you want to get paid for your work, make a hard copyright from the beginning and don't mix your profession with your hobby. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sad but true … Theoretically attribution hints like the ones in the Norwegian Wiki could in most cases be generated automatically by the Mediawiki software. When an image looks like a photo (has the usual Exif values etc.), has a single entry in the ‘Author’ field of the {{Information}} template and this entry has the standard form of a user-page link, the software could automatically add “Photo: <username link>” at the end of the image caption. In all other cases the software could show a small warning instead: “Fellow editors, please add the attribution to this image manually.” This way the need for maintenance could be reduced drastically. – Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the same technical solution as in the "Favorites" userpages (such as yours User:Aristeas/Favorites), then I'd have to oppose -- the attributions are not always correctly generated, apparently there are problems at least with file imports such as Flickr. --A.Savin 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Good objection! No, I did not mean the same technical solution. The “Favorites” gadged uses a very simplistic (to avoid an impolite word ;–) implementation; it just looks at the name of the uploader in the file history. The result is often nonsense, of course. I would oppose such a solution, too. It should be possible to find a much more accurate implementation by looking either at the “author=...” field of the {{Information}} template or at the Wikidata values; and in any case the attribution should be created only if the result of the analysis is clear. – Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any solution would need to involve no effort on the part of Wikipedians, and do the credit line automatically much like you get in the Media Viewer one sees when one clicks on a Wikipedia image while logged out (or if that's your preferred setting if logged in). It isn't perfect, relying on the photographer/uploader/commoner to get it right wrt templates and such, but it is better than expecting Wikipedians to do it.
The Wikipedia style is technically within the CC law, but requires a click to show any credit info. The Norwegian style isn't explicitly correct either, giving just the author name, and relying on clicks for the rest. So someone copying a Norwegian image and sticking "Diliff" below it, would very much still be using it illegally.
This has the unfortunate effect that the most popular and likely place anyone will see your photo is somewhere that does not explicitly get the licence details right, and the image can be copied without ever seeing the attribute or licence details. It is this that sites like Pixsy make their CC money from, and Wikipedia imo should take responsibility for enabling the copyleft-troll business model to exist. If the images explicitly had "© User:Colin Licence: CC-BY-SA-3.0" on them, there'd be less excuse that one didn't know it wasn't free and didn't know what one was supposed to do to reuse it. Wikipedia could also help by having a little "reuse this image" button on each image that took you to a page that explained what you need to do. Currently the Media Viewer is an example of how to do it right but there's no Help Page link explaining what is necessary.
If Commons images were all self made, we could impose conditions on uploading them wrt pursuing individuals for incorrect attribution. But most licenced images on Commons come from elsewhere, and as long as our model is hoovering up whatever appears to be free, we are susceptible to abuse.
I suspect Wikipedians will not be interested in correct explicit attribution. The text-based project they spend most effort on is collaboratively built and they accept their contribution is a drop in a hidden list of many. They also don't really view themselves working on a free-content project, vs just writing Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia is free to read; they don't realise it is also free to reuse). And the collaborative model that discourages any ideas of ownership of articles, also discourages a mindset that gets terribly upset when people copy the text without getting licence details right. Our single-creator free-to-use-anywhere image model is alien to them. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to end this important discussion, but as this goes far away from the deletion request itself so we should move this to another place. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, you are absolutely right. Since I was the one who derailed this thread, I'll copy-paste the last bit of this to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where I'm sure the discussion will continue, and fold up that part here. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: Please suggest another place, or as requestor I am fine with keeping the discussion going here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course by "here" I meant the original location Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. Yes, I think that if we can get the WMF to add attribution for every licensed Commons file used in mainspace on every WMF project in a standard unobtrusive way, that would be great. Adding it for the PD files would be nice, but I don't think that's necessary on talk pages. Also, if we can get the empty "link=" parameters removed from the recommendations in the last paragraph at en:H:PIC#Links (and other language versions), that would be extra special. I managed to soften that recommendation in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However the "link=" parameters serve a purpose here on Commons, where some of the FP design is built on using such links. See for example: Template:Natural scenes FP galleries top. I'm sure there are similar uses on other WikiProjects. --Cart (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the development of an interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer. This system would include an additional panel in the image display interface that clearly and accessibly displays the license information and author credits at all times. Additionally, I would implement a "How to reuse this image" button that guides users through an interactive tutorial on the necessary steps for the legal use of the images, including how and where to properly apply the attribution and license Wilfredor (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Those would be nice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a software developer with 14 years of experience, I work on several mediawiki things but that is not my specialty. It could be a month at most. Although the philosophy and politics of WMF are all extremely slow, we still have an uploadwizard that works "well" (just reviewing the countless bugs in the phabricator). We could have another open letter similar to the one that is currently being heard against the media viewer and that is the only real thing that occurs to me Wilfredor (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I happily support this idea. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And who is going to develop an "interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer"? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, all of this is a pipe-dream. But we are allowed to dream from time to time. Right? --Cart (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me, Cart. I'm all for providing attribution in the caption – actually, very much so. I just don't think waiting for the Wikimedia Foundation is the best first step (for the obvious reasons). Let's instead go back to our language versions and start a conversation about implementing this new rule. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Can you mock up how you would want it to look on paper or in your favorite drawing program, and upload that or post it somewhere public?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has always been disappointing and astounding to me that there's no way, on Wikipedia, to automatically get metadata from a Commons image: a technical issue that has probably wasted tens of thousands of hours of people's time (retyping captions, for example, when an image could just have one default caption that seldom needed modification, and almost always only ever needs a single alt text). On the issue of Wikipedia's stupid attribution system, obviously this is not a place where that can be decided, but I have always thought it was godawful. It combines the worst of all worlds. On one hand, it goes way too far (it ruins the UI of reading Wikipedia -- all images are forced to be gigantic surprise hyperlinks to a different page). On the other hand, it does not go nearly far enough: virtually nobody deliberately clicks on images in Wikipedia articles to see the credits, and they're often reused without the hyperlinks (not to mention they present an accessibility hazard)... so the default way to display Wikipedia pages just completely lacks any attribution for the images! It's really, really bad, and I think it might have made sense to do this in 2004 but I am strongly in favor of replacing the stupid hyperlink thing with straightforward normal image credits (which is what almost every normal website uses). JPxG (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Modeling correct behavior is obviously the right thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. – Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and gardens gallery[edit]

Per what Aristeas wrote here, a new gallery pages for 'Parks and gardens' might be a good idea. While reading that comment, I got the idea that we could go up one level and make the page 'Recreational areas' or something like that. It could then include sections like: Parks, Gardens, Sports venues, Hiking paths, etc. All outdoor areas that aren't covered exactly by the usual 'Places' categories. With the 'sports venues' I was thinking about places that are temporarily used for some sports event (example), and 'hiking paths' sometimes end up in 'places other' since the track is not completely natural. Just some thoughts. Sorry to jump in here on Aristeas' idea, but I'm going to be away for a while, and I wanted to get these thoughts down on the forum before I went offline. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we want to distinguish manmade parks (e.g. city parks) from natural parks (e.g. national parks). The latter should still remain in the "Natural" category. But I do agree with the general sentiment, because it is hard to classify city parks under the current taxonomy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with King, yes. Kritzolina (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Cart for opening a discussion on this; I fully agree with her statements. Also many thanks to King of ♥ for the clarification. Yes, by ‘parks’ we mean man-made areas, not the national parks and similar nature preservation areas; photos from the latter naturally (no pun intended) belong to the ‘Natural scenes’ galleries. Let’s keep this discussion open for some time in order to collect further remarks; if no serious objections are raised, I will have time to create the new gallery page in about two weeks. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should explicitly state "Regional parks and gardens", because park on its own to me implies a natural one (like national parks). --SHB2000 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Artificial recreation areas" as opposed to the sexist "manmade recreation areas"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are uncomfortable with using normal English words like "manmade", there is also the neutral term "Landscaped areas". "Artificial" brings to mind AstroTurf, fake trees and plastic flowers. Also, Commons is multilingual, and far from all languages share the constructions with, and meaning of, "man" that English has. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cart: "Landscaped recreation areas", then?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions are welcome here, we are still at the brainstorming stage. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the "landcscaped area" thing, because it also includes all green spaces that might not officially be a garden or a park - just this bit of green between two rows of houses. And yes, we usually don't get FPs from such informal green spaces, but who knows ... Kritzolina (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: Such areas could also be the backgrounds (comprising much or most of the image) for well-photographed flora, fauna, and even perhaps a floral display honoring Steamboat Willie. Do I understand correctly that you appear to want to drop the "recreation" bit?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff, I did not really think about dropping the recreational thing completely - but now that you are suggesting it, it could be a great way to title the whole section, yes. Not all of those green spaces are recreational in the strict sense. In a very wide sense they are - even when just walking home through one of those green strips from the bus stop, it is nicer than choosing the roadside route. So it would work either way.
But yes, I was thinking about stuff like floral displays or just interesting landscaping choices. I just took a lot of pictures of a developing quarter in Munich - they planned it with lots of those informal smaller green spaces with lots of interesting landscaping details. Once most of it no longer looks like a construction site, this might be one place where such an FP might come from. Kritzolina (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kritzolina might be on to something here. There are interesting photos to be had even in very little landscaped places (ok, that one might be more minimalist). Sometimes having a gallery for photos will help people discover that there are such places too to photograph. And come to think of it: Where are the FPs of flowerbeds? I guess we have a thousand or so FPs of flowers, but as soon as flowers are combined, they get difficult to classify with the galleries we have now, and usually fall secondary to a building or monument. --Cart (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Hi everyone!

Yesterday I nominated an image for featured pictures for the first time ever. I understood from @W.carter: that it is not allowed to ask people to vote. This is called canvassing, as I understood. I was wondering how often canvassing actually occurs here. Since it is very possible that regular users vote for other regular users' photos, I was wondering to what extent this could be considered canvassing. I have a feeling that as a new user, you are less likely to have your photo declared as featured. But I could be wrong!

So far no regular user has voted for or against my photo. However, this while other photos nominated on the same day, and even photos nominated a day after, have been voted on by users who have also voted on other photos. Is this because I am new and people don't know me yet? Or do people not dare to vote for or against my photo, and wait for someone else to vote for the first time? I was just curious! It's nothing personal!

I would love to hear from someone!

Kind regards,

S. Perquin (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there S. Perquin! Since I'm in the business of informing newbies, I'll answer you. :-)
First, canvassing is rather rare at FPC, but the mere hint of it can be dealt with quite swiftly.
You being new has nothing to do with people not voting. If you nominated a bad photo, you would get a number opposes very quickly, I can guarantee that. ;-) This is actually quite good for a phone photo. Phone shots are usually not of a quality that is good enough for FPC. So firstly, you should be proud that it hasn't been "trashed" right away, no swift 'opposes' is a good sign. On the other hand, the photo just isn't spectacular enough for immediate "wow!"-supports. To give you the very hard honesty, it's what we usually refer to as a "Meh..." photo. It is good and nice and all, but it doesn't have that extra punch that is expected from an FP. The odd angle doesn't help either. Many regular voters are a bit skeptical to artistic photos and they usually don't get many support votes unless they are especially spectacular.
Like many newbies at FPC, you are a bit nervous and chatty. Try to be more patient and see what happens. ;-) If a photo is just on the brink of being good enough for FP, people like to take time to think it over. The worst thing you can do is being impatient, or withdraw your nom before the voting period is over. If you want to ease into how it is to get your photos reviewed, you really should start with nominating them at COM:QIC first, that will get you more acquainted with how voters think and how the system works. It is strongly recommended that you start there before moving on to FPC.
Btw, you don't need to tell people what camera you used and settings and such, we can read all that from the Metadata section on the file page and on sites that decipher the photo's EXIF data for us.
I can also add that you seem to have bunch of loyal friends who are unfortunately making things difficult for you by not reading the rules before showing up and vote. They are not doing you any favors, I'm sorry to say. If they continue with odd comments in annotations and voting despite not having enough days and edits on Commons, some voters can take this the wrong way and stay away from the photo of someone that can be seen as bringing a mess to FPC. I'm sure they mean well, but take this as a friendly warning. --Cart (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cart, thanks for your comprehensive answer! I will be patient and I will also nominate my photo on COM:QIC! I didn't know this existed as well. Thanks again for your reply! I wish you a nice evening! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digitally altered photos[edit]

For the first part of this discussion see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple martin in flight (30977).jpg.

Digital alterations of photos have been going on for years now and some have been promoted to FPs, 1 & 2 & 3, but like Frank Schulenburg said they are becoming more and more frequent. This is of course because editing programs are getting smarter, more available, and because these techniques are getting normalized and part of our daily life outside Commons now. We will not be able to, or should, try to stop such photos from being uploaded on Commons and even nominated at QIC and FPC. There is no way of knowing where to draw lines, and putting a ban on such will only result in undeclared major edits.

But I think it is about time to make it clear that significant alterations should be declared on the file pages. That way, voters on QIC or FPC can make case by case decisions about how they feel about the alterations. I propose that we add a new rule to the FPC rules (QIC can open a similar discussion if they like) about disclosing significant alterations. I don't have a good wording for such a rule yet, but it could be something like: Significant digital alterations, like replacing the sky, must be declared on the file page. The original version should also preferably be visible in the image's upload history.

We should also keep in mind that we have no way of knowing how altered or manipulated photos imported from outside Commons are. This is very unfair to Commons photographers who try to do the right thing. Voters often go into Oh-Ahh!-Rapture! over a photo from Flickr or Unsplash that any experienced photo editor can see is heavily manipulated, while they will turn a cold side to a Commons photographer who is honest and declares a slight alteration. I think this too should be taken into consideration when voting.

Let's discuss this. Best, --Cart (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a time where AI-created and digitally altered images flood the web, it's important for Wikipedia to ensure the integrity of the visual information presented. Wikipedia is a widely trusted source of knowledge, and heavily edited images can mislead viewers, distorting reality and misrepresenting the subjects depicted. Authentic photos help maintain the credibility of the encyclopedia by providing an honest and true-to-life visual representation, which is essential for educational and informational purposes. – I agree that we won't be able to prevent people from uploading images where the sky has been replaced or where reflections have been photoshopped in. However, I'm eager to find a way to prevent those photos from being used in Wikipedia articles. Maybe we need a red, blinking warning sign that says "Please do not ever use this photograph in an encyclopedic context, because it doesn't reflect the reality and will undermine readers' trust in Wikipedia". Other than that, I like Cart's suggestion above (both the wording as well as the requirement to also upload the original version). In addition, I suggest that we add a requirement that “photo art” is clearly marked in the image description and file name. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not specific techniques that should be prohibited. It should be about the extent to which it affects the depiction of the subject. Adding, removing, combining, etc. should all require disclosure, but there's a world of difference between swapping in another shot of the same sky from the same place/time and, say, adding a pretty coastal sunset to a mountainous afternoon shot. One is, by definition, realistic while the other is not. It isn't the technique itself that does this but how it's used. Using content-aware fill or the new Photoshop AI tools to expand the sky for compositional reasons seems to be something folks are perfectly ok with, even though that is creating something completely unreal. Creating additional buildings in a skyline using the same technique, however, would probably cross all of our bright lines because it would significantly change the reality of the subject. Removing a little twig poking in from the side is generally viewed as acceptable but removing part of a map would not be. Sharpening is ok, but using an AI program to shift the focus or to fabricate bokeh where it would be impossible might raise some eyebrows. Stitching a panorama to capture the experience of looking at a space vs. stitching it to make a curved vista look horizontal again could be problematic because of the way it affects the subject. In short, what's important is that the subject is depicted in a realistic way. There are a variety of modifications that we do/can tolerate when they improve the picture without sacrificing any realism, and those modifications should be documented but not forbidden. The idea that swapping the sky for one in another photo from the same place/time would be placed in the same "unrealistic" paradigm as creating 100% fake reflections is, to me, wild. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are different degrees of alterations, but if we are to implement some sort of rule about disclosure, we need to keep things simple. It's impossible to make subdivisions based on how much a photo has been altered, I mean who will decide where those lines go. We can only inform that changes have been made and let the those who use the photo (or vote for it) make their own decision about whether it's acceptable or not. We can't exactly set up some sort of censor guild to review what alterations are ok and what are not, and grade the images accordingly. In most cases, common sense will prevail. We only need to examine an image's file page better before slapping it onto an article. Heck, at en-wiki texts are routinely checked so that they are not just copied from sources, there are tools for it. It shouldn't be harder to simply check an image's file page. It wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply make WikiProjects more aware about source criticism in these AI times. --Cart (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the guidelines of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) for what is not ok in post-processing with regard to protecting visual integrity[1] (I bet there's more available on the web when it comes to sharing photos that are being used in a journalistic and/or educational setting):
  • "Dramatic changes in color that alter the original color of the scene. For example, changing a gray sky to blue. Color correcting sensor/white balance issues from incorrect camera settings is allowed.
  • Changes made by dodging or burning, adjustments to brightness, contrast, color, saturation, sharpening or clarity that significantly alter content by obscuring, enhancing or diminishing elements in the photograph.
  • Just like during the making/capturing of an image you may not add, move, remove any objects or persons. You may only use the cloning tool – or any other tool – to remove dust spots on the image created by the lens, the camera sensor or dust from scanning physical negatives. You may NOT use the cloning tool – or any other tool – to extend the photograph or expand the canvas of the photograph."
When it comes to ethical guidelines, we might also want to talk about whether it's ok to bait animals in wildlife photography, btw. But that's a whole different conversation ;-) Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I agree with adding a disclose rule, specific wording to be discussed. The idea of adding the non-manipulated image to the file's history is interesting, is anyone aware of an upload tool that could automate/aid such a workflow? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Visual integrity, guidelines of the National Press Photographers Association for the 2023 Best of Photojournalism Competition, last accessed on May 21, 2024
We actually have a template here to put on photos that adhere to the NPPA guidelines. It's called Template:RAW. ;-) I just wonder how many Commons photographers would be willing to put that on a file page. --Cart (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=878468321"