Commons talk:Quality images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons talk:Quality Images)
Jump to: navigation, search

Procedure for adding images to this page and subpages
The current procedures for adding images that have been promoted through QIC (either as listed by QICBot or manually from Consensual_review after a decision has been posted) are:

  1. ) Add images to the top of the appropriate gallery(s) on the main page. NB some sections have subgalleries. It may be appropriate to add an image to more than one section.
  2. ) Trim the gallery down to 4 images or only those newly added that day if more than 4. (images are normally left for at least one day on the main page, so I normally leave any overflow until I add the next days images).
  3. ) Add the image to the top of appropriate galleries on sub-pages. Some pages have many subsections and subgalleries. Also note that some galleries contain natural groupings. --Tony Wills 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also note that within the natural groupings there maybe further subgroups, though not necessarily subdivided by headers. When in doubt you can always ask me. Lycaon 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Original instructions[edit]

When promoting try to keep this page to a maximum of 4 images, or only those newly added. All the other images can go to more... pages, while on that I dont know how to script the small return at the top of the page. As these pages grow then we can an necessary branching ie places -> buildings, parks, etc. Gnangarra 11:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Doing something right[edit]

Images that have been promoted to Quality images have been used on the http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Awards nomination page, a big pat on the back to photographers and a thankyou for those who have helped to create this. Gnangarra 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

QI - seal request[edit]

QI seal, currently this is being used for the QI seal on templates I have ask User:LadyofHats, who already has two drawings promted, if she could create a couple of different seals from which a replacement could be selected. Gnangarra 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the seal[edit]

design[edit]

  • stylised Q and I
  • simple camera shape

colour[edit]

  • current green shades.

Sketches[edit]

here are some sketches. let me know what you think. or if you like one of them just tell me and i save it on commons. LadyofHats 18:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

wow can we have them all. There are three I'd like to try the Green seal top right, the two diagonally down from there, the gold Q and the Q&I on the bottom row. Though my inclination is to the green seal.Gnangarra 01:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can place the Q&I simbol inside the green stamp. or in the golden circle when you wish. LadyofHats 08:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • try it in the green stamp please. Gnangarra 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Here chose your favorite. -LadyofHats 11:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
        • They are all good. Perhaps I would picke the one on the right or the one on the left. However, the middle one will do also. --Thermos 12:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
          • They ar all wonderful, I took the image into a viewer and reduced size down the darkest was the best looking at smaller sizes, so the left oneGnangarra 15:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you have it Quality images logo.svgQuality images logo.svgQuality images logo.svgQuality images logo.svg -LadyofHats 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

thankyou I've been bold and changed the template Gnangarra 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


→ maybe this way. --W like wiki (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What we can do with that?[edit]

Quality Images is a good idea, I think. But what we can do with that resources. So, please look for Częstochowa and my proposal for Wikialbum page schema: User:Przykuta/Album:Jasna Góra (it's not quite good example - not everyone photo/image is Quality Image).

We will be able to make Wikialbums, when we will colect more Quality Images. So, problem is with language. Perhaps it will be other Wikimedia Project, cause description in more than one language will be problematic. Other propositon is like this: all files we categorize, but in main space we leave only QI. But in my opinion users, who want to look for galleries, want to look for big pictures with description in their language, not in all languages.

So, Wikialbums is only idea now. We can create Wikiatlas for maps, animals and plants, castles, churches, cities... Wikiatlas or Wikialbums ? (I don't know, which name is better) What do you thik about it? Przykuta 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

this was what I was looking at when realised that something was needed to identify the higher quality images available at commons. I had looked at thousands of car pictures and could only find 12-14 that would have been of a suitable size and quality for use in this. --Gnangarra 13:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. But I think, that it will be better in foreseeable future. When these 12-14 pictures was upload to commons? I have only idea, QI project is not old :) I think that is good time for Quality now. Wikialbum or Wikiatlas would be good catalyzer. Przykuta 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Music map[edit]

Hey, please check out Commons:Village_pump#Peer_review. I'm hoping for some help on Music Map of the United States.png -- I still think the idea is sound, but it seems like I'm in way over my head as far as image editing goes. (all I wanted to do is put some colored bits and text bits on a map of the United States, which seemed so simple...) This page was floated as place that might get some good feedback, so please let me know if you have any ideas. Issues range from which format to use to neutrality concerns and presentation, see Commons:Village_pump#Peer_review for details. Tuf-Kat 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

new categories[edit]

I think there schould be created new categories of QI - Architecture and Works of art. Pko 08:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Animals and Places are being rotated through rather quickly as high rate of additions - need finer subcategories on this page. --Tony Wills 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
suggest breaking into the sections on the sub pages for animals. Places maybe continental ie Europe, Africa, Oceania etc... Gnangarra 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of QI & FP tags?[edit]

(Also posted to Commons talk:Featured pictures) Image:Il Vittoriano (particolare)14 11.jpg and Image:Il Vittoriano (particolare 2).jpg are tagged as quality image and featured picture, but I see no links to the evaluation pages of either group and it appears it was never submitted. Also added to Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Places by author. Anyone else care to check this. If I'm right, should anything be done apart from removing the tags? --Tony Wills 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Image:Palatino (Giardini Palatini dei Farnesi).jpg, Image:Arco di Costantino (particolare).jpg. looks to me like a misunderstanding of the tag usage. --Tony Wills 21:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the tags from all these images. I will post an explaination on his talk page --Tony Wills 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Omissions added back in[edit]

  • I noticed lots of QI images weren't present on the QI pages. So I did a comparison of images in the QI category and these pages and added 112 missing images which I have listed here Commons talk:Quality Images/Added-April07. I checked each image was linked to a QIC archive page and had the QI tag, but in most cases I didn't check the actual QIC vote. I did detect a few images that were marked QI which hadn't actually been voted on - these were generally alternative versions of QI images, in which case I removed the QI tag (Image:December_Fog_edit_2.JPG, Image:Versailles_Chapel_-_July_2006_edit.jpg).
  • I also repaired the Feb 07 archive which was missing a large bunch of images and votes.
  • I have no idea whether all votes in all months have been executed or archived properly.
  • It appears there were a couple of months where few images were put on the QI pages (though the images were tagged etc), the rest were random ommisions. Hopefully the QIC Bot will help avoid this in the future. --Tony Wills 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in introduction[edit]

In the sentence "Quality images are different from featured pictures as they are all self published images by contributors to Commons." does "they" refer to "quality images" or "featured pictures"? 80.56.85.136 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How to navigate to Quality Images[edit]

I understand that the link to Featured pictures is prominently visible on the commons Main Page but I wonder why there is no proper spot to tell about Quality Images. The nearest I find is a link buried on the Featured picture candidates. I think at least a link near the top of Featured pictures should be there. --Klaus with K 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought 1 -- user id[edit]

When the images are placed in the QI galleries wouldnt it be nice to acknowledge the photographer/uploader by displaying there user name. See the example below Gnangarra 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm, but are there any volunteers to do it? :-). Maybe nice work for a bot. --Tony Wills 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah a bot would make short work of this wouldnt it, other wise I'll do it slowly over a couple of weeks or so its only 1000 images. In future the thing is QICbot would be ideally placed to create the layout when does its bit in promoting Gnangarra 09:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I could think of more useful information, like filename, dimensions, image size. What additional value would the name of the photographer have for an end-user? --Dschwen 06:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It wouldn't have any utility for the end-user. It would merely be a nice way to recognize users who have created and contributed valuable content to the Commons. --bdesham  15:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought 2 -- Astronomy section[edit]

When I was creating the QI pages I just adopted the layout of the Featured Picture Galleries, headings and all. As QI is now 12 months old I'm wondering if the Astronomy section should be removed and when we eventually get some they can be a subsection of the Places grouping. Gnangarra 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same just a few days ago ;-). Lycaon 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
two minds same thought ;) Astronomy has vanished into a black hole though is always the possibility it could reappear some time in the future. Gnangarra 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Template to display the QI seal[edit]

The {{QI seal}} template will display the Quality Image seal. It uses a default size of 15px, which is appropriate for use in gallery captions. See the template's page for more information. --bdesham  23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, nice to know. Thanks. ;-) -- Slaunger 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I nominate my pics as quality images?[edit]

How do I nominate my pics as quality images? MathKnight Flag-of-Israel(boxed).png 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See QIC --Tony Wills 10:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Internationalisation[edit]

I see there have been a number of attempts to produce non-english language versions of this page, but it does not quite work because all the sub-headings are in English. Most other language versions appear to be static snap shots of how this page looked at some particualr date, and they do not see the daily updates. Also we need to work out a way to get this page to automatically pickup the latest images from each subpage. This may require a redesign of the subpages. Also the subpages need to be usable by different languages too. And of course we need a way QICbot can automatically update the subpages. Anyone care to participate in this grand reconstruction ? :-) --Tony Wills 10:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This really, really needs doing, anyone care to help develop a suitable system? --Tony Wills 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have re-organised things so that each language version can have images transcluded into their page, with their own language headings. --Tony Wills 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of changes[edit]

I have added one new subject type - "Events" to cover photographs that might perhaps be of 'news' events, but are at the very least documenting an event rather than just a place or people. I have added a few pictures already classified in other places, there may be others that I haven't noticed.


I have also gotten rid of 'Historical' as this is a hang over from when QI was created and mirrored 'Historical' on FP. But in FP it is primarily for 'Historic' photographs (eg old black & white photos taken 100 years ago). Whereas it was been used here for photographs of 'Old' things, or even for photographs of reconstructions of 'Old' things. Recently it has mainly been used for photographs of paintings. I thought we were in much more need of a classification for photographs of works of art (eg reproductions of paintings, ceilings, stained-glass windows) which may or may not be old (but probably are otherwise we'd need copyright release).

If I'm wrong I can probably put things back to how they were ;-), or we can create a new Historical category. --Tony Wills 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of these galleries?[edit]

There are increasing complaints about the size of these galleries (this main page and the sub-pages), so it is about time that we re-thought what we are doing, and perhaps re-organised things :-)

There is a significant maintenance load required to sort images into these pages, but why are we doing it? Do these pages make it easier to find images? Are these pages adding significant value?

As far as galleries are concerned they are very minimal, there are no titles added to each image, and on the larger pages it is hard to sort through the images - eg images of the same animal etc are not grouped together (although there are occasional efforts to do this). Images are just in chronological order. We could make a huge effort to do these things to make these pages more useful, but maintaining those aspects would more than double the editing work to maintain these pages (eg each image would need to be opened to formulate a useful caption from the description).

We could convert these sub-pages into categories as that is generally what they are - collections of mostly unsorted images related by some theme. So we create a QI-Animals, QI-Places, QI-Depth_of_field? Or do we go further and create QI-Birds, QI-Reptiles, QI-Electronic_&_electrical etc? Would that be more or less useful?

What alternatives if we do away with the sub-galleries?

We could set a bot to work adding {{QI_seal}} to the image caption wherever a QI appears in a gallery in Commons, or perhaps only if there is an existing caption (to avoid screwing up layouts that are not using image captions for some reason). (we could do this whether or not we retain these galleries).
We could use catscan eg to find all Birds that are QIs (intersect Aves and Quality_Images). Sometimes a bit slow, and sometimes the toolserver or database is not available (as at present).

Perhaps we need to go back a step and ask how do people really use these galleries (if at all), and what do they want from them?

Other ideas/comments ? --Tony Wills 22:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I started watching how images get there after I used images from the galleries a few times -- I think that is how it went. I just read some of the backlog here and I am really really glad that the photographer names are not displayed with the images.
For the galleries to have been chronological and then to get reordered is something that makes me wonder about the need for that -- I suspect it has something to do with how the longer you are involved with wiki* the more sensitive and easily hurt you become. I rather preferred the chronological ordering of the images -- for no special reason than that it is the least subjective. -- carol 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, deja vu? We just had that conversation on someones talk page not too long ago. I was just looking for it but didn find it. Anyone remembers where? --Dschwen 23:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I enjoy looking at the galleries from time to time. I just think we should chop some of them up. Specifically, Commons:Quality images/Subject/Animals and Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places. Calibas 07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I also browse the gallery pages. As QI is once given always kept tag maybe the gallery pages should be archived by a time period and linked via the main QI page. As we move forward with time more consistently the QI images will be recently taken. Having a historical archive that will enable someone to compare a QI of building in 2007 to a QI of the same building in 2010, 2013 to 2017 would add another tool to enhance the value of both QI and Commons. Gnangarra 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If overcrowded, galleries are useless, if oversplitted too (you should have to know the most recent latine name of the family before seeing the smallest part of a duck's bill). The same with categories. So I think chronological archives are enough (every 3 months ?). And inviting people to put the QI seal beside the picture in the galleries they deal with.--B.navez 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So we see all these sub-pages as simple archives of QIs ? No ordering or sorting is necessary, we just file them in convenient sized chunks? --Tony Wills 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
see Western Australia for a gallery doing exactly that with the QI and FP seals Gnangarra 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, these galleries help to see what QI-images already exist and perhaps to have that in mind when proposing images as QI (as example I think it's not really necessary to look for more gull pictures ;->) as well as looking if QI-pictures are used in galleries/wikis or finding QI pictures for a gallery you are working on
for that use it is useful to have them at least generally ordered - eg all gull pictures together - not mixed all over birds
As I think that 'animals' got really a bit large I put 'Anthropods in a gallery of their own - I should probably have read your comments around here first - so if anybody is against my changes I understand if they are changed back (I'm not sure if I chose the best gallery name - should it be '...Subject/Animals/Anthropods' or is what I chose ok?)
--Anna reg 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You got my support, Anna. Lycaon 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the Gallery Quality Animals - some exemplary pictures for Anthropods and only using the samples of Birds and Mammals. I hope that's ok with everyone... (perhaps it would be fitting to incorporate anthropods as well over a sample showing the last pictures in this gallery - but I don't know how to do that - and an exemplary gallery is better than nothing ;->)--Anna reg (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

category vs gallery[edit]

I was thinking about this. I love the categories, I really do -- but for me, the category Quality Images is almost useless and if it is or ever becomes competitive, one look at a United States phone book screams about problems with that. AAAAA Accounting, AAAAA Plumbing, etc.

I have been wondering lately if the 'conversational' quality that both of the nomination based pages have would disappear if there was a flushing of the admin and starting over with those things.

Calibas is correct though, about those particular two gallery needing redistribution. Would it work to encourage images other than animals and places by moving several of those elsewhere (still accessible by a click or two) and is encouraging this desirable? -- carol 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

as for AAAAA name QI requirements do say having a meaningful title so such titles could be considered meaningless and thus decline the image. Gnangarra 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well that is just an extreme example, people can be more creative than that to get their images to the top :) --Tony Wills 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, a pentaple 'A' (is that a word?) rated image :-). Ok, so the main advantage of galleries over categories is that the gallery is chronological. Or to put it another way: having the gallery in a totally random order as far as content is concerned is an advantage? :-) --Tony Wills 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I get a little embarrassed when I see phone books like this. The greater the population, the more entries like that there is. I wonder about the success of such a ploy and if receiving information via web based search engines will render it ineffective -- if it ever was. -- carol 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I considered chronological as the least subjective before I was aware of the fact that an inappropriate name was a reason to oppose an image from QI. However, a poorly named image can still receive votes that qualify it? I pose this question because all of the things that are supposed to disqualify an image can be voted 'around'. -- carol 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of issues with categories. There is no easy way to display all subcategories (there's probably some extension I guess) and also the plus sign next to a subcategory that doesn't have subcategories of its own is really annoying as you have to go and expand all of them for no reason. That's why categories are horrible for browsing (at least for now, but I think they have unrealized potential). --Dori - Talk 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

gallery names[edit]

Separate to the above discussion were the size and what to do with the galleries this is about the names of the galleries only

  • are the gallery names appropriate,
  • can they be altered,
  • combined
  • split.

my thoughts are that places could be split by region, with man made and natural subgroups. Animals drop for the separate subgroups that already exist. Astromony, events should be combined into other groupings. Gnangarra 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You really like that idea, huh? I am curious how you use the QI galleries that makes you consider and promote this idea so consistently. -- carol 09:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
wow once ever twelve months or so must be a cyclical thought. Just a browser look to see what/how features of the images. Gnangarra 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about the reasons that photographers use these device for their photographs and one of the reasons I came up with might also explain the lack of astronomy photographs by independent people here and in FPC. Lack of competition in the real world. Within the last few months, somebody figured out that the beautiful photograph of the building and the people standing in front of it was actually a wedding photograph -- that was kind of funny, but also kind of sad editorial about professional photographers.
Perhaps grouping the photographs by month -- it doesn't even need to be rotated on the first day, would be useful. The thing I would miss is when the image in thumbnail gets help understanding what it is by the heading it is under. -- carol 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
One consideration when deciding how to split/classify images on these pages is how easy is it to sort images. If we classify 'places' by region then we would have to open each image and read the description (hopefully that would tell us enough), the current classifications can mostly be sorted by just looking at the image. Opening each image makes sorting a lot more work (fine if someone is volunteering to do it :-).
Anyway, that comes back to what do we want to use these pages for, is it useful to have these images sorted by region? If you want a picture of a particular region are you not better going to the appropriate category or gallery and then looking for an FP or QI image of what you want? This is where tagging the images in galleries with a little QI seal would be useful. (I am not defending the current classification in Places, which is fairly useless ;-).
I agree that combining some pages would be a good idea, simply because the main QI page is getting a bit long. But I have only just created the 'Events' classification as the images didn't really fit elsewhere.
So rather than starting at the wrong end, and fiddling with groupings and classification names, go back to my original question - how do we envisage people use these pages, why do they use them (or why don't they). Once we have that better defined, the way we should display images and group them may be easier to see. --Tony Wills 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
maybe we drop all the subject galleries keeping technical and just a monthly gallery, which is displayed for three months then archived. so that in Feb we'd have a feb gallery being created plus Jan, Dec and Nov being displayed. QIC bot populates the current month gallery which would be Commons:Quality images/promotion gallery/2008/February, when looking through the gallery theres an image that is considered worth having as a technical example then the editor just copies it there. For the transition period we just start the feb gallery then the march gallery at which time all psubject galleries get archived into Commons:Quality images/promotion galleries/2007 Gnangarra 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Currently the technical qualities gallery on the main QI page is slightly different - it changes relatively slowly, and is more like a traditional Commons gallery, illustrating some theme. The other galleries on the main page are more a window into the recently promoted QIs, a slowly moving slide show of our latest pics (or picks). When you talk of three months of galleries do you envisage them all being on one page (three galleries on one page), or each being on a separate page (I'm just thinking 3 months worth is a lot of images) ? --Tony Wills 11:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
good point, current would be a monster to load near the end of each month by its self, probably something like whats there now but it'd need an image rotation on the main QI page fairly frequently.....mmm need think more..Gnangarra 23:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization inconsistencies[edit]

I just went on a page-move and category-rename rampage to make the capitalization of Images in COM:QI and COM:QIC more consistent (it was even inconsistent across the QI by subject and technical merit subpages!). It should now be lowercase everywhere, similar to the capitalization of Featured pictures. The re-categorization is running in the Mediawiki Job-Queue, so currently mot all QIs show up in the new category. Be patient. --Dschwen 16:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Addition of {{QualityImage}} to images without the process[edit]

I noticed that Image:Blackberry 8820.jpg had the {{QualityImage}} template applied, apparently without having gone through the QI process. I've removed the template, although I don't have time now to warn User:Dirkj about this action. For others interested in doing such policing, a feed of new images added to Category:Quality images is available here. HTH, bdesham  18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New Subgroup for Studio Photo[edit]

I suggest to make new subgroup "Studio shooting" into the "Quality images by technical merit". This purpose of typically images which was taken at the photo studio or something similar situations (e.g. Image:Tamron_180mm_Makro.jpg). These meet most quality merits except "Proportion" and "Movement control". And then, for an encouragement to indoor or things images. _Fukutaro 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality CC image source on Flickr[edit]

See here - worth trasnfereing to Commons.--Kozuch 01:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There are approximately 3000 images being uploaded to wikicommons everyday. This QIC thing is one of three nomination mechanisms by which photographers should be able to submit some of their better images for critical attention, or others who search for and find the images of others. I mention that now because this is perhaps not the best place to discuss a massive upload of the works of another person. Start at the Main Page and see where the information there takes you to finding help for the uploading of image collections that are located elsewhere online. -- carol 05:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you suggest a place for listing valuable external resources then? I seem not to be able to find it myself.--Kozuch 11:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a very nice batch of images… nice find, Kozuch! A notice at Commons:Village pump would be seen by the most people—I'd advise you to post there. Cheers, --bdesham  15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for recognition. I posted a Quality image resource page question.--Kozuch 17:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

numbers as labels[edit]

Hi! I stumbled upon Image:Receding_glacier-en.svg which was picture of the day last year. Please note that there are versions with labels in Danish, English, German, and Russion but there is no version with numbers as labels. If not done so yet - could you please consider making "a version with numbers as labels" as requirement for a quality image? The reason is: especially smaller languages cannot use it because there are less authors who know how to adpopt the image. A version with numbers as labels is much easier to used in any language because you don't need to modify it -- Nichtich 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Abolishment of {{QualityImage}}[edit]

I propose that it be merged with {{Featured picture mul}}. -- Cat ちぃ? 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Test logo, feel free to overwrite with better version if you like
I don't think we should do this… the {{Featured picture mul}} template is purely for featured pictures, and reflects that fact in its color and icon. Having one template box indicating featured-picture status and a separate one for quality-image status is not unreasonable IMO. --bdesham  14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have recently created the template. Original intention was to restrict it to featuredness but I am now seeking to unify the template to deal with all awards images receive. I can easily include the 'quality image' logo along with 'featured image' logo. I would however recommend a new third logo for images that are both "quality" and "featured".
All awards on commons follow the "featured" color scheme, I would suggest such a color shift for quality images.
-- Cat ちぃ? 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps purple for Featured Pictures and green for Quality Images -- shift like that? -- carol 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry? Are you referring to the Quality image color? The logo I thought was a hybrid of Image:Cscr-featured.svg and Image:Quality images logo.svg. Perhaps Image:Cscr-featured.svg inside Image:Quality images logo.svg's circle possibly replacing the QL text. It would have both logos in one image basically... -- Cat ちぃ? 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you are saying (I think). Then, when the Valued Image thingie gets going, you can slap a big V on top of all of these? -- carol 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I assume you are asking the logo for a situation where an image is a valued image, a quality image and a featured image... I am unsure how to merge Image:Valued image seal.svg into all this. I will experiment with it now. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Meh too difficult. I suppose my Image:Featured Quality logo.svg can be fit inside the Image:Valued image seal.svg. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Templates are fun to make and very helpful. Consider first making a template that explains clearly the differences in the three different review mechanisms and perhaps a template for each of them that presents the suggestions (like the size requirement, license restrictions and suggested number of nominations at one time -- all items that recently have been problems for what is apparently the super-ceding review mechanism) so this might be applied to users who did not read the information or perhaps don't understand the criteria and the differences between the mechanisms. That is my suggestion for templates that would be more advantageous for a template maker to start with. -- carol 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In order for me to alter a heavy-use template I must make sure there are no other problems. I need the image and a general agreement first before I make the changes. Making the change itself is trivially easy for me. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to give an idea: Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg. This image has received six different awards. Including POTY finalist, featured (on 4 wikis) and quality image. -- Cat ちぃ? 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm opposed to this new logo the way its presented implies that FP is something greater than QI. I can appreciate that you trying to create a milestone type template but the process arent like that, all three processes(FP, QI, and VI) are independent and serve different purposes. As such they arent part hierarchical system like the quality scale on en. If there are pages that look cluttered through the use of the templates then nesting them with a smaller more slimline template doesnneed this type of discussion. Gnangarra 06:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thats exactly the point of this discussion. Consider Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg. -- Cat ちぃ? 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to make the translations automatic so that just the language you have chosen is displayed? -- that would reduce the length of the one template. Personally, I think that the information about the photograph is more important than the votes it got -- meaning, I think that the information template should come first in the scroll. -- carol 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we really want to discriminate like that even if we had such software support? It is possible for an image on commons to receive 6 awards even if we entirely stick to commons awards. Consider POTY, Featured Image, Quality Image, Valued Image, POTD, Wallpaper. Thats clutter. The template is capable of handling "POTY, Featured Image, Quality Image, Valued Image" for now. Adding others isn't that hard but I haven't done them yet.
Oh and this image is temporary, it can be changed at any point. Its better to have this than nothing. Stand alone example: Image:2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG
-- Cat ちぃ? 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
When I am on es.wikipedia and (as an example) find an image that I did not know about and click through to the commons, the page is generally displayed in Spanish. This is discrimination? -- carol 07:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Although I assume good faith for the drivers for this I strongly oppose such a multi-award template in the first place.
  • The template logic will be overly complicated.
  • Handling reasonable default values for parameters (like a subpage parameter) will be more complicated as now they can't anymore such be the last unnamed optional parameter in the template call
  • Making bots work and correctly change the parameters will be overly complicated and harder to test.
  • Having one logo on top of the other is aesthetically unpleasing,
  • Border and backgorund colors between FP, QI and VI are inconsistent and oppose forcing their colors to an FP scheme.
  • The template name is misleading
  • Since it is heavily used it has to be restricted, this makes maintenance harder (the VI templates are, e.g. not restricted at the moment becasue they are not stable yet)
  • Every time a comma is changed in the template every image page containing the multi-purpose award template has to be re-rendered.
-- Slaunger 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Template logic is trivialy simple.
  • Adding such a parameter would take me a few seconds.
  • No it would not, this makes it easier.
  • It was merely a temporary solution, if you have a better idea we can do that too.
  • This isn't the FP color. Many other awards use this. I could change the color just for QI but I really do not see a point for it atm.
  • Template can be renamed with the touch of a few buttons.
  • QI template is also under heavy use. Heavy use templates can be edited.
  • This is again a no-issue. The template will not be frequently edited. QI template is also under heavy use.
-- Cat ちぃ? 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is an opinions/conclusions, which you are entitled to have but which I do not agree with. Whereas I see a point in doing it for FP from various different WMF projects, perhaps including POTD, since it is really an FP spin off also makes sense. Including QI and VI does not as it is different projects with different processes, different bots. The existing templates work sell seperately, so I see no reason to change something which works well, which is relatively simple to maintain, and which most users understand. Although I acknowledge that you are only trying to do good, and you have done so by absoring FPs into one multipurpose template, the scope of the all-purpose template award should not be widened further. I can see that many other users share that point of view. -- Slaunger 15:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not make a mountain out of a pebble. As much as FP, QI and VI may be different they are that much similar. They all use identical template structure. My bot can easily take over the current tasks if the current bots cant. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the template logic is not very complicated, but a template with conditionals and subtemplates is not trivial. It is certainly more complicated than the current quality image template. I think the current template works fine. So unless there is some specific problem that is fixed by merging the templates, the new template is overly complicated. /Ö 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even an idiot (me) can use it. To mark a template as "quality image" all you need to do is pass the parameter "com2=1" and "com2=2" would demote. What is so difficult? -- Cat ちぃ? 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose such an 'abolishment'. FPmul is a good idea applied to featured pictures. Extending it to QI makes no sense. The concepts of FP and QI are entirely different, FP exists on many projects, QI is commons only. I also dislike the notion of QI being an award, if you want backpatting go to FP, QI is a classification effortfor the enduser to build a large library of technically good images. --Dschwen 12:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • From what I seen everybody considers QI an award. Template is always placed next to other "awards". QI can be popular among wikipedias. The concept differences between QI, FI and VI do not require seperate templates. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The template is placed by a bot on the bottom of the image page. is always placed next to other "awards" is purely coincidental. Don't make your template something it isn't, and more importantly don't try to makw QI something it isn't. The template is fine for FP, but QI is a different concept. --Dschwen 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment on Auto demotion hereafter. Lycaon 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • These are two different issues. This makes no sense. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • ...QI and FP serve different purposes... I think it does. Different purposes, different processes, different templates. Lycaon 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We have plenty of featured quality images. So that statement may not be entirely true. Seems like you want to use a seperate template for the sake of using it. I seriously do not understand the reason for the opposition. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks better now without the merged templates, so I drop my opposition. Lycaon 08:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The template is a "work in progress", I'd be more than happy to hear suggestions so I can shape the template better. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to like the new version better. But it is becoming more than a featured picture mul template. Find a better name and I might rethink my opposition. How about {{Assessments}} short concise, no abbreviations, and a more neutral/general name. --Dschwen 15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I intended to do that. "featured picture mul" was intended as a temporary working name. However this should be discussed by the general community first so we pick the best name. Feel free to propose it on Commons:Village pump. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to use? Is it really[edit]

Ok lets all take a step back and review what we have. Over the course of the discussion I altered the template to meet your needs. Here is how a sample use looks like (from Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg):

Template (a soup of "awards")
}} Template:Assessments/comTemplate:Assessments/dewikiTemplate:Assessments/enwikiTemplate:Assessments/eswikiTemplate:Assessments/trwiki Wikimedia Commons
Usage
{{Assessments
  |POTY=1|POTYyear=2007  <- Picture of the year parameters (you do not care about this parameter)
  |featured=1    <- Featured picture on commons      (you do not care about this parameter)
  |quality=1   <- '''Quality image on commons'''   (Bingo, this is all you care about)
  |wallpaper=2   <- Widescreen walpaper notice       (you do not care about this parameter)
  |dewiki=1 <- Featured picture on de.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |enwiki=1 <- Featured picture on en.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |eswiki=1 <- Featured picture on es.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |trwiki=1 <- Featured picture on tr.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
}}
Template (just quality image)
Template:Assessments/com/img Template:Assessments/com Wikimedia Commons
Usage
{{Assessments|quality=1}}
Template (just quality image - failed)
Template:Assessments/com/img Template:Assessments/com Wikimedia Commons
Usage
{{Assessments|quality=2}}

except that {{Assessments|quality=2}} doesnt apply as QI doesnt have a demotion system once a QI always a QI. Gnangarra 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I know that. It was intended as a demonstration. Should "former QIness" gets adopted by the community in the future, the template is ready for it. If such a thing is never adopted, it would stay as an unused line in the code forever. Featured pictures originally did not have formerness either... -- Cat ちぃ? 11:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you know that then remove it from the template as its unnecessary. QI is separate from FP has a different purpose and a significant part of QI's purpose is as a record of how technical improvements have altered photographs over time. Gnangarra 12:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion[edit]

See above... -- Cat ちぃ? 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Impact on the VI project[edit]

A related discussion is here. -- Slaunger 06:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussion[edit]

Any other comments? -- Cat ちぃ? 09:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice on top of the page[edit]

This section was formerly named as "Auto demotion".

I suggest we "demote" Quality Images when they become "Featured Images" which is the next step. Am I wrong? -- Cat ちぃ? 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong  ;-). QI and FP serve different purposes. In QI, technical quality is the most important issue, while in FP, the WOW reigns. Some obvious FP's wouldn't pass the QI process and vice versa. At the other hand many FP's also sport the QI seal. Lycaon 09:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, then I can adapt this fairly easily. I withdraw this suggestion. Thank you for the clarification. I strongly recommend that the difference between featured and quality images so is more explicitly noted - probably via a template notice. -- Cat ちぃ? 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Where would such a template be used? -- carol 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On top of any page related to "Quality images" such as on top of Commons:Quality images, Commons talk:Quality images (this page) and other similar pages. This is to prevent the confusion like the one I had. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, how much time did you spend observing how things work before this attempt to improve them? -- carol 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Several months? A couple of hours? Since they started and have been discussed for years now? -- carol 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I should spend 0 seconds to figure out how something works. There should be notices giving the general idea of whatever process/policy/guideline/etc covers. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"Should" or did? Mechanisms which are technically challenging tend to attract technically minded (like working though how a camera works and then working through how to get a good photograph in the frame -- and this is just the beginning) and in my opinion, it is perhaps too easy now! My reasoning is that really good photographers will not waste too much time with amateurs and mechanisms designed to be brainless. Of course, this is all of my opinion but this next question is not: who said it should take 0 seconds or where is that said? -- carol 06:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Being an environment hostile to new users is a license to failure of open content projects. I would not want to be affiliated with such a project. All process on all wikimedia projects have such notices. Rather than wasting more time arguing on this, consider what harm would putting such a notice do? None? Consider the potential benefits. -- Cat ちぃ? 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It was an expansion of your idea to make the page colors different and I think you suggested that the criteria be put into a template as well. If I have this wrong, I am sorry. For me, the best way to learn about something is to do a little bit of it at a time until I "get it" or understand it. Understanding is incremental for me and I suspect it is others as well. If making templates is your way of learning how something works, you might get to the end of your task and then understand that it was wrong.
I do not think that a template will do anything to affect the hostility level of the different review mechanisms. In fact, it has been my experience that the templates only work to defraud them (some people get them and some don't so if you pay attention you might stop to think of one or the other being superior to the other and consider that they are incredibly broken and that it is a miracle that good or even great images still get nominated at all.
In every place I have lived, there already was an established neighborhood and a collection of neighborhoods that were similar yet different from each other making a town or a city. The locals could locate themselves either via written text or verbal communication. In the different neighborhoods, things might work a little differently from the other ones -- to tell the residents of one neighborhood that another neighborhood was better and that theirs is to be superceded would be kind of rude and probably not encouraged by anyone in the collection of neighborhoods. It is my opinion that this is exactly what you are doing now, the neighborhoods being a metaphor for the different review mechanisms that are available on this wiki and others, and I have the opinion that it is rude of you to do so. I shall stop with the discussion now mostly because I cannot get the 'this is rude' idea out of my mind and there is a chance that you are not actually being rude, and if this is the case, accept my apology. I would like to vote NO as many times as I am allowed to for this. -- carol 08:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you even know what I am proposing on this section? It is unrelated to the two sections above. Consider w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, w:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Commons:Deletion guidelines, Commons:Ownership of pages and files, Commons:Deletion requests#How to list "deletion requests" (random list) as well as many others. Each has a note at the very top of the page. That is what the "Auto demotion" sub-section is about now.
You cannot expect a new user to know every written and unwritten policy, guideline and process. New users should be able to understand the general workings of a policy, guideline, or a process at a glance.
-- Cat ちぃ? 08:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose such an auto demotion. The two processes are not designed in a hierarchical fashion, the criteria and aims are sufficiently different. --Dschwen 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Read what this discussion please. This is not about "auto demotion" at all anymore. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hm, isn't it about this suggestion: I suggest we "demote" Quality Images when they become "Featured Images" which is the next step.? I'm a little confused. --Dschwen 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I did originally thought that way until I was instructed that QI isn't like "Good Article" on en.wikipedia and instead an entirely seperate process from "featured". I then suggested that this should be explained via a template notice. Sort of like "Quality Images in a nutshell". This is intended to help new users. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project[edit]

The official VI seal

The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC[edit]

This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality. The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.

Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process. --MichaelMaggs 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Non photographic media -- subcategory[edit]

Before we get too far down the road with the illustrations coming in via the m:Philip Greenspun illustration project, maybe we should create a subcategory of Non photographic media specifically for image from this project. Gnangarra 11:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Own uploadership[edit]

Just a question - the rules state that an image must be uploaded by its author to qualify for QI. Can I be clever about this and upload to my flickr account, then use flickr2commons and still qualify? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from flickr dont meet the self published requirements of QI. Gnangarra 22:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but they are MY photos, and I'm the one putting them on Commons, just I'm using a bot to do it. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving "Quality image" stamp[edit]

Hi! I would like to move the "Quality image" stamp from File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04.jpg since it has a bad composition. I losslessly cropped the image and it is available at File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04 cropped.jpg. I could not just replace the image since it is protected (Quality images cannot be improved anymore???) and administrator refused to do it. I feel it is obvious that the stamp belongs to the cropped version instead. Please, consider moving it. Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The crop is not the QI, the full version is. As for why it's protected, I'd say it's protected as it's a candidate for POTY. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible for QICBot to remember the QI images so it can maintain the presence of the template on the image page? -- carol (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why the cropped version is not the QI and the full one is? Miraceti (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The image that is reviewed for this template is reviewed for composition (which includes crop) and other things. To replace it with a version that one person feels is superior defeats the process and the reason that the template was applied to the image. If you feel that the cropped image deserves this review approval, then nominate it. It is a different image. -- carol (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel that it is obvious. Please create a consensual review section on COM:QIC for requests like this. --Dschwen (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you do it for me? Clearly you are much experienced with this procedure. Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen was asking me to make my bot request more official. The request I made was for the bot to know when the templates had been removed and to be able to manage it -- preventing people who don't understand what the QI thing is from mismanaging it. The request had very little to do with the image you were asking about and more about the situation that you are presenting and probably I am not going to ask for this from the bot officially.... -- carol (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, the whole discussion is apparently full of misunderstanding. Sorry, if I have caused it. I will try to nominate it myself. Miraceti (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2008. Voting is now open[edit]

POTY barnstar 1 2008.svg

The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).

čeština | Deutsch | English | français | हिन्दी | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Bahasa Melayu | русский | +/−

Ducks in plymouth, massachusetts.jpg[edit]

This image seems to me to be worth recognition. Since it is only 768k I am guessing it is not FP. Is QI the place for it? I am assuming it has not been considered for recognition since the image description and cats it is in make no mention. --KenWalker (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It meets the size criteria for QI and FP (2 megapixels). You can nominate it. Yann (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Subdivision of Man made structures[edit]

Hello,

I think we should add subdivisions of the "Man made structures" classification, at least Building interiors, Building exteriors, Bridges (and Roads?), Others, etc. Yann (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, any opinion? Subdivisions for "folklore", "custom" and "dress" would be useful. And also "musical instruments". Yann (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that this category needs subdivision. Go ahead and be bold. 129.78.64.100 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

POTY mailing list[edit]

Please see this discussion. Further input from the community would be nice. Best regards, --Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Which quality?[edit]

I think "quality" is a poor substitute for "good", which is unquestionably the intended idea. "Good" is a real adjective; "quality" has only been perverted to such usage in recent times, through carelessness. If "quality" must persist, at least specify whether it is high or low, good or poor.

I recommend "good" without "quality". Unfree (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I am bold to object that "quality" is too important a word to be used indiscriminately as a substitute for "good". Goodness is only one among thousands of qualities. Unfree (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unassessed images[edit]

I found a bunch of images that were archived in June 2009 without being assessed. Are they supposed to be archived if they haven't been assessed? Jolly Janner (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Think about copyright![edit]

Hi all,

It would seem that it looks bad if we give copyright-violations "quality image" status. I wish to point out File:Disneyland June 2008-6.jpg, which is a copyright violation as there is no freedom of panorama in France. I suppose freedom of panorama is not a straightforward concept, but do be careful when you can to keep this in mind. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • One year after Stifle's comment I have to reiterate the same. Why? Why are you guys "promoting" images that are DR firewood? Right now, in 2011? Don't you realize that any added wiki-exposure only speeds up deletion - by drawing unnecessary attention of deletionados of all sorts? (I wouldn't point at specific files, no need to piss off uploaders after "promotion"). NVO (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Monitor Calibrator available to be shipped to you on request[edit]

User Marcela has made a colorimetric monitor calibration device (eye-one display 2 by X-Rite) available to all interested parties. The device has so far been used to calibrate screens of Wikimedia users in Germany in the Nürnberg/Fürth region, and will travel via Helsinki to Stockholm and the international Photo-Workshop in Nyköping. After that it will travel to Senegal, Africa. Its further route is yet to be determined. If you are interested in calibrating your screen you may request the device to be sent to you. Software for Windows computers is packaged with the calibration device. Linux computers can be calibrated using Argyll CMS (see write-up here [1])

Monitor Calibrator available to be shipped to you on request[edit]

User Marcela has made a colorimetric monitor calibration device (eye-one display 2 by X-Rite) available to all interested parties. The device has so far been used to calibrate screens of Wikimedia users in Germany in the Nürnberg/Fürth region, and will travel via Helsinki to Stockholm and the international Photo-Workshop in Nyköping. After that it will travel to Senegal, Africa. Its further route is yet to be determined. If you are interested in calibrating your screen you may request the device to be sent to you. Software for Windows computers is packaged with the calibration device. Linux computers can be calibrated using Argyll CMS (see write-up here [2]) --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody have good and useful information about how to calibrate, how to assure that the calibration is good, how to measure (or judge) display quality (not all displays show 'good' colour, not even when properly calibrated)? In english, swedish, german... Does anybody here understand calibration and raw image conversion well, and can answer questions like 'is this a good converstion, or _how_ can it be made better?'. That would be interesting for me. --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
@Dschwen: ist das Gerät inzwischen bei dir angekommen? @Janwikifoto: with this tool it's easy to calibrate the Monitor, you need the tool, the software and the rest is automatic. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I have a calibrator device, and maybe the process is automatic. But raw (NEF) to JPG conversion is not automatic. Are there any good guides here? Some questions (a) what is good contrast, (b) how to tell if color balance is ok, (c) when using Nikon ViewNX, what color profile to set? The profile generated by the calibration? How will it affect color if I use the 'nikon sRGB' profile? (d) what adjustments can safely be made using the JPG, as raw conversion takes much time, (e) is there anyone here that can look at converted pictures, and say how they could be better, or what error was made? Anyone who has such experience? Good info would help generate better quality pictures. --Janwikifoto (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The object is quality, not the photograph[edit]

Gull portrait ca usa.jpg

This looks shopped. Besides, looking at the image, I can see that the seagull is quality, not the image.
6birc (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Don't take even one word of this post seriously.

I agree, the backgound noise pattern is the finger print of photoshop. But don't be so sure that the bird is quality, for all we know all the rest of the bird is a real mess and we're only seeing the good bit ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Not shopped. --Dschwen (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Species ID[edit]

Is ID to species level a requirement for all wildlife QI with no exception? Thanks. Gidip (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it is not possible to identify a specimen from a photo, maybe a photo doesn't show vital details, or a disection or microscopic or DNA analysis is needed for proper ID. And don't forget that there are of course as yet unidentified species out there (maybe you can give it a name ;-)! Also, in my opinion, it is best not to guess and put a misleadingly certain ID on something when no one is sure. For most mammals and birds and even butterflies it usually doesn't take too much research to get quite precise, but fungi and insects can be difficult from just a photo. I think that if reviewers think that your id is wrong or imprecise they have a duty to suggest what a better ID would be ... after all the point of QI is not to be a competition between users but to help improve our image quality and user skills. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Second review for QIC[edit]

Is there no formal process by which previously reviewed QIC get a second review? Many photos are reviewed by only one person, and after 48 hours become accepted or rejected. I believe such a quick process should be backed up by an option for a second evaluation, this time with several people's opinions. What do others think? Gidip (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, it is called Consensual Review (CR) Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Consensual_review_process. Basically you edit the template for your nomination and change the "/Promote" or "/Decline" into "/Discuss" and add a comment with your reasons for requesting the review. It is eventually moved by a bot to the Consensual review area at the bottom of the page. There it can be discussed at length and voted on by others. Normally the request for CR needs to be done before the nomination has been removed from the QIC page, but given that nobody got back to you within a couple of days, I'm sure we can just pull your nomination out of the archive and send it to CR if you request it. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

10 million files[edit]

Commons is approaching 10 million files, and should get there in within the week. There's a draft release in progress at Commons:Press releases/10M. I think it would be appropriate for some description of QI's work to be there.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Review the categories[edit]

Hello,

I think we need to review the categories. The "human man structures" category is quite useless as it is, because it is already overcrowded. We can't use it to search for a QI. Things will only get worse. I think we could copy the category structure used in Valued images. With a tool like the QI categorization tool, all images could be quickly categorized in subcategories. Yann (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with you. Converting the man-made structure page to a category was something that I too had in mind. Opening the current page only causes the browser to freeze due to the large number of thumbnails. I had raised a similar concern before over here. In fact, I feel that all the QI subpages should be converted to categories. But, this will require the help of User:Dschwen who operates the bot. --Jovian Eye talk 00:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I put a message to Dschwen. Yann (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that part of the proposal: all the QI subpages should be converted to categories. I think this is a bad idea, as this will lead to the creation of a secondary category system. Categories are already complicated enough. Plus see my point of the the subpages being "for show" in my opinion. Such a change would also require a lot more work on the bot. --Dschwen (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not full copying. However detailed elaboration is necessary. Man made structures: yes, similarly to VI buildings.
Transport - with new separate pages "Helicopters", "Planes", "Dirigible and balloons", "Wheel tractors", "Armored ground military wehicles".
For wildlife it is necessary to add section "flat worms" (Platyhelminthes) - we already have one promoted and unsorted photo for this section.
The section "musical instruments", "church organs" "small arms", "cold steel", "Clothes", "Footwear" is still necessary for detalisation of "other objects".
-- George Chernilevsky talk 16:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, my two cents are: "please avoid duplicating the existing category system on commons". I agree that human structures might need a little more subdivision, but the browser crash argument should not play any role (get a decent browser for crying out loud! ;-) ). From my point of view the QI galleries are more of a show-off page where we can demonstrate the huge amount and variety of high quality images that we have. For finding images I suggest category search and intersection tools. If we chop up the QI-categories too much each individual one will only have a meager amount of images, and we will just end up repeating all the inherent failures of the main common category system. That being said, i certainly won't stand in the way of a consensus decision and will make the necessary adjustments to the code. My memory is a bit foggy, but if I recall correctly it should suffice to create the appropriate subpages, the appropriate sample gallery pages and to update the qihelper.js script to list the new categories. The bot itself should be smart enough to handle new QI-categories. But please let me know (preferably in advance) when and if you are making any changes, so that I can check and help. Because if you screw up there will be a tedious amount of clean-up to do! --Dschwen (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on intersection tools, unless there are hosted on Commons itself. Currently I don't see how an ordinary user can use them: there are difficult to find, difficult to understand, slow and unreliable. Whatever browser is used, many QI galleries take forever to load, even on a decent DSL connection. We should be able to simply browse through our QI collection, looking for a QI of a particular subject. This is not possible now. Yann (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I opened this QI gallery in Chrome and around 20% of the thumbnails (more to the bottom of the page) did not generate. The problem arises with the number of thumbnails (If I remember correctly the thumbnail server has had issues before). I have a slightly different suggestion. For example the bot can dump the relevant images at the top of Subject/Places/Man_made_structures. Once this page exceeds 400 (lets say) images the older images can be moved to Subject/Places/Man_made_structures/Page_1 then to Page_2 ...Page_N. This process will not require any change to the bot. Somebody can manually move the images to the concerned subpages. This method will also keep Subject/Places/Man_made_structures fresh with new images. The subpages will remain static. --Jovian Eye storm 00:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it would solve only part of the problem. "Man made structures" is much too vague to be a useful criteria for searching. Yann (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, When will we fix this issue? Yann (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, when do we fix this? Yann (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tilt lens[edit]

We need to clear the guidelines for QI produced with tilt lens. Discussing one photo, Commoner said: «I find the blurring towards the sides very disturbing», thus stating that a photo made with tilt-lens cannot be QI. Another Commoner added: «This effect does not serve WP Commons purpose». Those two authors spoke nothing about the quality details, but more about their own taste preferences. This means we need some guidelines about checking the tilt-lens images.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The case is not about TS lenses as such (you used one of the sharpest pieces on glass on the market - mounted on an APS body, it must be sharp edge to edge at any shift setting, even wide open). It is about recognizing photographic and encyclopedic quality of an experiment with miniature faking.
  • At any rate, allowing quality exemptions for some lenses sets a slippery slope (how about "quidelines for $99 superzooms"?). NVO (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You seem to lay on some incorrect sample, because I faced the trouble with photo that has nothing about fake miniatures. My case was about special unsharp left and right edges. You are right about "quality exemptions", they cannot exist. I rather speak about the case when a lens becomes a reason for denial. More details in Russian on your talk page.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with QIbot[edit]

There was something wrong with the QIbot at November 12. Some of the photos here just disappeared without being promoted.--MrPanyGoff 15:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Please take a look at: Commons:Village_pump#QI/VI/FP_categories. Thanks - A.Savin 11:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating Quality images template ({{QI}}) to {{Assessments}}[edit]

I think this is a good idea. It would keep everything in one place. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There already is an existing parameter for that in the Assessments template. I would just have to modify my bot to use it. But that is not at all trivial to implement in a robust way. Insertion of a separate QI template on the other hand is easy to code. --Dschwen (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It is a simple regex actually. It can be implemented with little difficulty (if at all). Even AWB find and replace code would be sufficient for future promotions. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
We have been through this before:-) Please don't. Assessments is alreay overloaded with too much responsibility making it very hard to maintain. Moreover, the color scheme with the background color and the color frame in QI is designed to match. The only way you can do the same thing in the assessments template is to bacially stack frames up, such as if you had a sequence of separate templates. And then it makes much more sense to keep the logic separate. I know you love that Assessment template because you made it. The only advantage I can see is that different kinds of assessments will always be shown in a consistent order. But should there be a consistent order? Besides that only disadvantages, especially for bots. I can repeat the same argument for VI. --Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually I simplified the code yesterday. It is fairly simple to add features to it now. I will try to answer your other points in bullets.
  • I do not believe coloring is that big an issue. When I look at the template in use, it lacks any kind of distinct color in the background. At least no more distinct than the Creative Commons license. One could argue that the green borders are distinct but I do not see borders being that important.
  • There should be a consistent order. It looks chaotic when these templates are randomly placed or if they get moved around. I have seen cases where the different assessment templates were so far away from each other where you could not see both of them at the same time.
  • I do not love assessments template. I created it out of necessity because too many assessment templates were taking pages with the possibility of issue getting worse. Currently we have templates for Quality images, Valued images, POTD, POTD (for each wiki), Wallpaper/Aspect ratio notice. It has gotten cluttered in some cases. On pages such as File:Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg or File:Mahuri.svg you can see it is rather intense.
One additional advantage of a unified template is that it can have instructions for different processes. People can nominate featured images for QI or VI. I doubt everyone is aware of all commons processes. Could be a nice way to get more volunteers as well. This process can use more volunteers in my humble opinion.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

{{VI|Saint Anatolius of Milan|03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)|}} {{QualityImage}} {{Assessments}}

Random edit point[edit]

Take closer look at File:Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg page history. Image was first VIed The image was then QIed by bot. You can probably see the problems. If merged the notification would look something like above template. The problem is more prevalent on pages where a lot more is going on at once. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't see as problems what you see as problems. I do see that sticking all the "assessments" together in one box just makes them all look the same, just a bunch of icons in a box as though there is some commonality between FP, QI and VI - as though they were just different grades of the same assessment process or something. Each of those sub-projects has very different aims, and it is appropriate to differenciate them on the page. Perhaps we should agree on where on the page the assessments should be placed. If we have a problem with the order of templates, then perhaps we need to write a bot ;-). But what order do we want, an arbitary alphabetical one, or is there some natural hierachy? How about just chronological order of assessment? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be a good start to put the assessments below the Information template(s). Descriptive info about the picture and its authorship are more important than tinsel. --Dschwen (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Currently order is chaotic. It would be quite difficult logistics-wise to order assessments chronologically. It is possible to incorporate assessments into {{Information}} making sure it appears at the right location. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am very much in line with Tony here. In the VI project we spend a great deal of thought, time and resources at project-startup to make a project identity, which would make it immediately clear that it was neither QI nor FP. We consistently use the same yellow-golden color scheme as background color and frame in all the templates used in the project in line with the logo. In the example above, the QI and VI logo is shown in shown in a color scheme, which is neither one or the other, but it resembles VI the most. I find that really confusing. Conclusion: QI, VI and FP has to be framed each with its own color scheme for the sake of clarity and for the sake of the visual project identities. This is done most simply by keeping the templates separate. Or it could be incorporated in a "thin client" unified assessment template, which really just calls those templates and stacks them horizontally in a consistent order. However, the latter would require changes in the implementation of the bots and other scripts that are used to support the nomination processes for the QI and VI projects. These bots would be harder to test and maintain. Concerning the relative placement of assessment templates on a file page, I agree w Dscwen that they should come after Information and equivalent templates. Regarding the individual ordering of FP/QI/VI I do not have a strong feeling about that, and this is also a question which is unrelated to the question of having a unified template or separate templates. --Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Your argument seems to me to be more about the appearance. It can still be a separate box below the main template featuring most files. Point is controlling all assessments from a single template to make sure their order isn't chaotic. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the argument is also bots. It would be a pain in the butt. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Which bots are we talking about? What functionality is the issue? It seems like a technical issue that can be compensated. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
User:QICbot and User:VICbot for starters. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh man, you seem to be oblivious about the fact that you are creating piles of work for other people. --Dschwen (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I am asking questions instead of making assumptions. Are you the operator of these bots? Yes? Then you can tell me about what problems this will supposedly cause. The bot seems to notify users and tag promoted files. If that is the only functionality of the bot a regex can resolve the issue. From a technical standpoint I see no problem that cannot be easily fixed. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am the operator, and the bots do a lot more than what you mentioned, but that is besides the point. It is certainly fixable, and if consensus is found for integration I will adjust the bots. But it annoys me a bit when people dispose of other peoples time. I already am spending a ton of my free time to work on Wikimedia related projects. I do not need unnecessary extra workload! Do not take other peoples time for granted! Ok? What I'm seeing here is mainly resistance. I appreciate your motivation and your work, but don't force solutions on this community that we don't want. Especially if they on top of annoying people create more work for other people. --Dschwen (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you know how much of my free time I had spent on the {{Assessments}} template people have been bashing? Should I also feel that everyone is taking my time for granted? This kind of attitude only serves to create a hostile environment.
I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. I have an idea and I am trying to discuss the best way to proceed with it. In return I see people expressing concerns that I would try to address. Currently the community is forced to have zillions of assessments templates in file description pages. Sometimes it is a wall of assessments where image description is buried. I see this as a problem.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 20:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes we appreciate your skill and considerable time spent. But you have been told pretty explicitly that certain changes are not wanted, yet you spend even more time developing them as though the community will eventually see the light and agree. It is pressing on, despite objection, that creates even more resistance to your suggestions. You are addressing a problem that is not seen as a major one by the community, and the 'cure' has a higher cost than it is worth. This is a collaborative project and changes have reprecusions that generate more work. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Cost as in dollars? Cost as in donuts? I am not pressing on. I am quite frustrated by the complete non-compromising attitude here. I see it as a problem, you clearly do not. That is your opinion. If this is a collaborative project my concerns shouldn't be disregarded without given any thought. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 01:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I can understand your frustration, but it comes from your extreme tunnel vision. It is a bit depressing to see that you are steering full steam to the next big meltdown. --Dschwen (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I seriously don't see where you got that from. That was about as helpful as you Cost as in dollars? Cost as in donuts? remark :-( --Dschwen (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
My primary concern is appearance and bots. Further along the line (but that has nothing to do with QI) the one-to-many relationship between a file page and a VI award within a specific scope (which I also brought up four years ago). Fits badly with a unified template unless you do crazy things like vi, vi2, vi3,,, template arguments, which would introduce further bot complications to resolve, more maintenance, harder to test.... I think a unified template and all its complications is a huge price to pay for consistent ordering of award templates. A consistent ordering is a nice to have (and could be done with a maintenance bot with the templates we have already, btw). --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The complication you mention is a one line regex. I am not trying to be dense, I just wish to see specific examples. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Then write it down if you want to be helpful. But it's a bit more. Check if the Assesments template is already in the description, if yes, check if it already contains a qi parameter (from manual tagging) if not, insert the parameter (consistent in style, if the template goes over multiple lines). --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Regex for AWB: (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)quality(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}})) would pick up the quality parameter in the assessment template if the template exists. {{Assessments}} is typically single lined when used. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is about time that the {{assessments}} template was forked into two streams. One stable one containing the features actually supported by the community to some degree and another one for speculative uses that contains otherwise unused code. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I would oppose this. We do not need local approval to tag images featured in other wikis. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your reply, but other projects can locally add whatever tags they like to images even if the image resides on Commons eg see tr:Dosya:Adams_The_Tetons_and_the_Snake_River.jpg. Commons is a separate wikimedia project that is closely integrated with other wikiprojects, we do not have to accept any changes (eg adding censoring to images), that another project might want to impose. But I wasn't saying that it is a bad idea to add tags indicating the featuredness of images on other projects. To the contrary, I was suggesting that we create a seperate copy of the template and edit it to reflect the usage agreed upon by this project (Commons), the existing template can be experimented upon and any improvements incorporated into the agreed version. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Breaking the template apart will not have any benefit whatsoever. You have not demonstrated any reason.
If this is just a turf war, do tell so I do not waste my time here. Just tell me Valued images and or Quality images is your territory and you do not want anyone to suggest change of any kind and I will not bother you people at all.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 01:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not a turf war between you and 'us', you are welcome to become involved in FP, QI and VI. The problem is that these are seperate sub-projects, their identity is that they are seperate, they were developed precisely because existing sub-projects did not cover a perceived need. The problem is not even a turf war between the projects, they happily co-exist and do their thing and the processes for one have no bearing on what goes on in the others. For instance it is possible to have an FP that is not a QI, an image can have outstanding impact/import but have been taken hastely (or subject to other compromising limitations), so not meet technical image standards demanded of QI. The idea of melding all the results of these diverse projects into one standarised form, runs smack into the distinction between these projects. We already have people assuming for instance that QI is just for second rate FP images. We need to have consideration of the history and rationale behind these diverse projects and respect their individual identities. --Tony Wills (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see that we have fundamental differences in opinion.
So being put in the same table or even template is out of the question because that conflicts with the identity of what is no more significant than a wikiproject? This isn't the point of having templates in file descriptions. We put such templates on file description pages as a navigational aid and also to recognize better content. The object promoted is the file in question NOT the wikiproject. I think the reason why people want to keep the template separate and so large is to advertise the wikiproject more than the file. I find this to be quite problematic.
From the perspective of the reader whom is NOT familiar with commons, "Quality", "Featured", "Valued" means little as user does not understand what they mean. From the perspective of the reader whom is familiar with commons, a detailed template isn't needed. It is not surprising that people cannot distinguish QI, VI and FP because they aren't greeted with a standardized form so they are confused by the mountain of different templates. In a single form even the wording can be adjusted to properly explain distinctions based on input.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 23:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The content of image pages is information about the image, the content of these templates is information about the image, the sub-projects do not need promotion, if anything they have grown too big ;-). I agree that these sub-projects and their templates probably mean little to new-comers, but being 'greeted' with a 'standardized form' would do the opposite, it would just hide the differences. For FPs it visually basically says that this image is featured somewhere, and you need to look more closely to see exactly where. By including QI, VI in the same format will just look like a variant on FP (this may be your wish?), but that does not communicate anything to the user (because they are infact not related). I think the individual templates should minimise the space they take up, and maximise their visual impact so that they are easily spotted by the user. The point of the various templates is not to promote the sub-projects, but to highlight the images, to attract the attention of the user that the image meets diverse criteria etc, the cost is a little more space taken up. --Tony Wills (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Rehashing discussion on {{Assessments}}[edit]

Templates[edit]

Quality images logo.svg
Quality image

This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.


العربية | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Discussion[edit]

  • I was also able to discuss with the bot operator to settle technical issues should there be consensus for the proposed change. RegEx strings that would be used for the bot were generated.
  • I have made modifications to the code to implement issues mentioned here as much as possible. I have not touched the wording ("This is a Quality image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines.") intentionally as that can be fixed with ease. If an agreement is reached the text could be made to look identical to the current Quality images template.
  • The text "If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it." can be modified to read quality status like how it is reading featured status and suggest users to nominate it if they feel it meets the criteria.

The past discussion was too heated probably everyone had made remarks they are not necessarily proud of - myself included of course. Therefore, I am proposing a second attempt to discuss the issue. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • except that the nominate it link points to FP, each process is different and should be treated seperately. Its the differences that make them important combining diminishes the value of the individual processes Gnangarra 12:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

& on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted[edit]

Hello,

A & in the name of an image on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted causes the image not to appear when using the "QI categorization tool". Could someone fix this please? It is Ok after replacing & with %26 [3]. I have no idea where and how to do that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Is there a place to browse Quality images, preferably by category, in reverse chronological order? If not, would it be difficult to create either a chronology or reverse chronology, as in the case of Valued images, which are very helpfully divided into bite-sized monthly groupings? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Check also thread QI - seal request.

Hello all together, to make a logo in the shape of an old wax seal is a very nice idea! But sorry:

Quality images logo.svg This image is NOT a Quality image.

Who can read the letters QI in this usual size of this image? Any idea for an upgrade? --W like wiki (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be made more readable, but it would lose some of its seal-like appearance as seals are usually very even in brightness and colour.
I'm not an expert in vector editing, but something like this would of course improve readability: Quality images logo mod1.svg Not sure if that's an overall improvement, though (even if done properly). --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

renominating an image[edit]

Hi,

A lot of images which are nominated for QI, are not assessed (positively or negatively) and after the 8 day period they are assigned to the Unassessed QI Images Category. Can these images be renominated?

--SuperJew (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

PD ?[edit]

Hi, On a quality image candidate review CA stands for chromatic aberration but what is the meaming of "PD" ? Regards, --Cvmontuy (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Perspective distortion? --Dschwen (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing duplicates on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted[edit]

The recent failed botruns have made a removal of duplicate entries on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted necessary:

h={};t=$('#wpTextbox1').text().split('\n');for(i=0;i<t.length;i++) {
l=t[i];d=l.split('|'); if( d[0].substr(0,5)=='File:' && ( !(d[0] in h) || (d.length>1) )) h[d[0]]=l; }
o=; for( a in h) { o+=h[a]+'\n' }; o

That code typed into the webkit console in (real) edit mode. Should remove duplicate entries. I just tried it. --Dschwen (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Man made structures[edit]

While using the QI categorization tool, it noticed once more that 'Man made structures' really should be subdivided - after all, about every third picture lands on that page! ;->
As checking each image separately in order to put it onto the right subpage would be very tiresome, the subdivisions have to have obvious criteria.
At the moment, the page is already divided into the following sections (but it seems, as if maintenance of the different sections was given up and the pictures simply remain under the first heading)

  • Buildings, Exterior (which is where everything lands)
  • Buildings, Interior
  • Bridges and roads
  • Others
  • Panoramics (which has its own page)

As most pictures show the exterior of buildings, that division is not enough. Perhaps we could develop a sensible amount of subpages to make those pages useable once again?
I've tried to come up with something, but I think it still needs some work...

  • Administrative Buildings (city halls, parliaments)
  • Bridges (and roads ?)
  • Palaces & castles
  • Religious Buildings (churches, temples,...)
  •  ? Residential Buildings (not sure about that one, but there seem to be quite a lot 'normal houses'...)
  • Other Buildings (mills, museums, cemeteries, Roman ruins, dams... => probably still the biggest category)
  • Other man made structures (e.g. Dolmen ? or perhaps there should be a subpage 'Ancient buildings' or something similar - I'm not happy with my proposed name...)
  • Cities (views of cities & skylines)
  • Gardens & Parks

I'm not sure if just making subpages of 'Man made structures' is the best idea (I think names like 'Subject/Places/Man made structures/Administrative Buildings' are a bit long...), or if it wouldn't be better to create a new page 'Architecture' (Subject/Architecture) for the buildings - and perhaps include 'Architectural details to differentiate between Closeups of Structures on objects and on buildings...
'Cities', 'Gardens' and perhaps 'Roads and Railways' (at the moment the object-subpage Railway contains trains as well as railway stations/pictures of rails) could still be placed under 'Man made structures' or directly under 'Places'...

What do you think? Anna reg (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just did the subdivision into Buildings, Exterior and Interior before reading this. Yeah, makes sense. --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


I just looked through about 500 pictures in man made structures (from the last version before I sorted pictures into 'Bridges' or 'Interior') and tried to decide which subpage they would fit. I'm not sure if october/september is representative, what with WikiLovesMonuments, but that's my result:

  • 27% religious buildings (1,4% church interiors - the only interiors I had in those 500 pics, but probably up to 10% temples)
  • 23% other buildings (~ 3% museums + theater + opera + stadiums together; ~2 % schools & universities; ~2% harbours; ~1,4% railway stations; ~1,2% hospitals; 1% fountains)
  • 12% palaces and castles
  • 10% cities (views of cities, skylines + street views & squares)
  • 6,8% ruins
  • 6% residential buildings (townhouses, farmhouses,...)
  • 5,4% administrative buildings
  • 2,8% architectural details
  • 2,5% towers (water towers, look-outs,...)
  • 1,8% industrial buildings (factories etc)
  • 1,6% bridges
  • 1,2% gardens & parks
  • 0% other man made structures (even though I know there are some 'not-buildings')

As we already have 4 'archive pages' (by guess about 10 000-15 000 pictures) of man made structures, I think 27% is still too much, while 20-1% should be fine and 10-2% ideal. That would mean quite a lot of new subpages... (with at least 200 pictures each).
Religious buildings could be further divided into churches, temples and other religious buildings. Man made structures (containing gardens & parks, cities and 'other man made structures') and 'Other buildings' could be sectioned and subdivided when necessary/possible (a section reaching more than a defined number of pictures - e.g. 200).
Any suggestions/other ideas? Anna reg (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This is fairly easy to implement. The first step is creating the subpages, the second step is adding them to the list in MediaWiki:QIhelper.js. Then we might want to add /Sample subpages to those subpages and add those to the overview on COM:QI. Do you think we should then go over all the old images in top-level Man-made structures and diffuse them onto the subpages? --Dschwen (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think going over the old images is necessary, as the page(s) are not really useful as they are now - but that will take time... ;->
But I think there is a step before the subpages can created - and that is finding out how many are needed and finding names for them... I'd really like some input for that, even if I'm probably bold enough to decide on something after thinking it over long enough... (e.g. I'm already quite sure that I'd prefer to create 'Subject/Architecture/xxx' to 'Subject/Places/Man made structures/xxx). Anna reg (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Anna reg, I think you are on to something here. Why don't you push forward with this and suggest a list of categories. We really need to split MMS up. A lot of the remaining uncategorized images fall under it. --Dschwen (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start. Feel free to edit or comment this list. --Dschwen (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting is a good idea! Thanks for the list - that looks already great... (I like the 'feudal' ;->) I just added Industrial Buildings, Transport, and Churches as subpage of Religious. I'm not sure if we should try to be consistent with the 'Building' or only add it when needed (Public Buildings and Public Architecture is not the same, while Industrial Architecture is probably fitting...).
On another note, here is the division VI uses for building:

  • Castles, palaces and fortresses
  • Cultural
  • Industrial
  • Institutional
  • Ports, airports and railway stations
  • Religious buildings and shrines
  • Skyscrapers and towers
  • Bridges
  • Other

Skyscrapers could be something we should include somewhere, too...Anna reg (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I find Structures too general to just refer to Bridges and tunnels (hence the infrastructure proposal above. --Dschwen (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Objects/Transport and Vehicles)

Sounds fine to me. Public Buildings could become quite big (~10-15%), but should be okay - as I understand it, that subpages includes administrative, cultural and institutional buildings - so everything from city halls to hospitals, schools, libraries, museums, theaters...?

Industrial could also be named 'Agricultural and Industrial' to include barns, farms, etc. Anna reg (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. --Dschwen (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the list is ready - if needed, we can always add new subpages... and thanks a lot for your support/collaboration, Dschwen! (and yes, I know that the biggest part of the work is still before us... ;->) Anna reg (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'll start to create the galleries... Anna reg (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay - I've now created an overview gallery 'Architecture' and most of the direct subpages we decided on - agricultural & industrial, residential, churches and bridges still have to be created. I further think that we should also have for all those not in one of the subpages (I called the link 'Architecture/Miscellaneous' for now). The pictures I used are the oldest from Buildings,_Exterior/Part_1 (just to create the galleries). Anna reg (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Added![edit]

The Subject/Archiutecture suntree is now added to the QIHelper script. Thanks Anna for already sorting images into the new categories. --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cache[edit]

Hello! I cleared all caches (Firefox, Network, ...) and always it is the same problem. I've got an old version of the QI categorization tool 2.0 or an old version of the script. I don't know what to do.--XRay talk 09:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like your cache was still not purged. Try loading this link (it is the script). And see if you see the /Subject/Architecture entries in the list at the top of the script. If not you are not getting the most up-to-date version. --Dschwen (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now added a version check in the script. Today another user again accidentally broke the categorization on the page by using an out of date version of the script. This should not happen anymore. I've also renamed the script to make sure everyone got an up to date version. --Dschwen (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong categorization of this talk page[edit]

Some of the above placed templates probably cause that this talk page is categorized in Category:Valued images sorted by promotion date and Category:Valued images promoted 2008-10, which is wrong. Is it necessary to remove the templates from the discussions here or is there any other way how to solve it? Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I found one {{VI}} causing havoc and replaced it by {{tlx|VI}}, two of the three bogus categories are now gone. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Marine sprays water[edit]

U.S. Marine sprays water to extinguish a simulated fire

The image at right cannot be a quality image since it is not the work of a Commons contributor.

  • Is it notable enough to qualify for some other form of recognition?
  • Am I right to perceive that it might have otherwise met quality image standards?

Thanks. 72.244.200.250 21:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)