Commons talk:Quality images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

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 1 Original instructions 2 Doing something right 3 QI - seal request 3.1 Thoughts on the seal 3.1.1 design 3.1.2 colour 3.2 Sketches 4 What we can do with that? 5 Music map 6 new categories 7 Misuse of QI & FP tags? 8 Omissions added back in 9 Confusing sentence in introduction 10 How to navigate to Quality Images 11 Thought 1 -- user id 12 Thought 2 -- Astronomy section 13 Template to display the QI seal 14 How do I nominate my pics as quality images? 15 Internationalisation 16 A couple of changes 17 What is the purpose of these galleries? 17.1 category vs gallery 18 gallery names 19 Capitalization inconsistencies 20 Addition of {{QualityImage}} to images without the process 21 New Subgroup for Studio Photo 22 Quality CC image source on Flickr 23 numbers as labels 24 Abolishment of {{QualityImage}} 24.1 Difficult to use? Is it really 24.2 Further discussion 24.3 Impact on the VI project 24.4 Continuing discussion 25 Notice on top of the page 25.1 Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project 25.1.1 The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC 26 Non photographic media -- subcategory

[edit] Original instructions

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)

[edit] Doing something right

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)

[edit] QI - seal request

, 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)

[edit] Thoughts on the seal

[edit] design

• stylised Q and I
• simple camera shape

[edit] colour

• current green shades.

[edit] Sketches

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 -LadyofHats 21:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] What we can do with that?

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)

[edit] Music map

Hey, please check out Commons:Village_pump#Peer_review. I'm hoping for some help on -- 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)

[edit] new categories

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)

[edit] Misuse of QI & FP tags?

(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)

[edit] Omissions added back in

• 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)

[edit] Confusing sentence in introduction

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)

[edit] How to navigate to Quality Images

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)

[edit] Thought 1 -- user id

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)

User:Gnangarra

User:Benjamint444

User:Sanjay ach

User:Sanjay ach

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)

[edit] Thought 2 -- Astronomy section

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)

[edit] Template to display the QI seal

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)

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

How do I nominate my pics as quality images? MathKnight 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Internationalisation

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)

[edit] A couple of changes

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)

[edit] What is the purpose of these galleries?

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)

[edit] category vs gallery

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)

[edit] gallery names

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)

[edit] Capitalization inconsistencies

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)

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

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)

[edit] New Subgroup for Studio Photo

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)

[edit] Quality CC image source on Flickr

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)

[edit] numbers as labels

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)

[edit] Abolishment of {{QualityImage}}

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

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)
      • If it isn't an award, just what is it? -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 13:12, 9 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)

[edit] Difficult to use? Is it really

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")
This file was a finalist on Picture of the Year 2007. This is a Quality image image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines. This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons: it is considered one of our finest images.     With an aspect ratio of 8:5, 16:10, or 16:9 this image is suitable as a widescreen computer wallpaper. This is a featured picture on German Wikipedia and is considered one of the finest images. This is a featured picture on English Wikipedia and is considered one of the finest images. This is a featured picture on Spanish Wikipedia and is considered one of the finest images. This is a featured picture on Turkish Wikipedia and is considered one of the finest images. 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.
Usage
{{Assessments |comy=1|year=2007 <- Picture of the year parameters (you do not care about this parameter) |com=1 <- Featured picture on commons (you do not care about this parameter) |com2=1 <- '''Quality image on commons''' (Bingo, this is all you care about) |com4=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)
This is a Quality image image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines. 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.
Usage
{{Assessments|com2=1}}
Template (just quality image - failed)
Former quality image logo goes here This image was formerly a Quality image. 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.
Usage
{{Assessments|com2=2}}

except that {{Assessments|com2=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)

[edit] Further discussion

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

[edit] Impact on the VI project

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

[edit] Continuing discussion

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

[edit] Notice on top of the page

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)

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

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

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)

[edit] Non photographic media -- subcategory

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)