Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Advise

I create this subpage for discussing the changes in the guidelines to promote QIs so we can understand well the problematic Ezarateesteban 14:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice way to further split discussions and to let it come to nothing slowly... --LC-de (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, it's archived now here... --LC-de (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, a formal RFC is probably how it should have been done in the first place. --El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Quality images candidates/candidate list

It is now costumary that often before reviewing a candidate a comment is made to suggest some modification of the images. May I suggest to ad a button with Comment to the Examine, Promote, Decline, Discuss buttons on the QI vote helper bar in order to facilitate the insertions of comments? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. Who did program this script? @Mattbuck: ? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Dschwen has written this review utility. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could do that, but seriously, why? You can just type your comment in the edit box! The other buttons change the template name, so there is some additional functionality. But for commenting it would just insert the text you type in. --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution in QI - new consensus forming

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Ok. My initiative is leading to nowhere. I will scrap this section tonight. Obviously there are many other people who know how to do it better. Someone else can start a vote if we discuss or not and if we vote how to vote and if this is democratic or not and and and. I hoped, that the proposal of an exit clause after six month will ease the decision, but anyway. I'm tired to ride a dead horse. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Void

Introduction

After the discussion came to a kind of stand still, it is probably now the right time to start over with the consensus finding from scratch.

To overcome some issues from the last discussion, I think there are only two options, we should consider:

  • The threshold of resolution is 2 Mega-pixel
    • Supporting this move means: No changes for submission of images will be made
  • The threshold of resolution is 4 Mega-pixel with allowances for some special situations
    • The threshold applies only for images which are taken with a camera or a scanner. They are not applicable for non-photographic work, such as graphics, illustrations, animations and vectorized files (e.g. SVG files).
    • A minimum threshold of resolution of 2 Mega-pixels is viable for the special situations of wildlife photography and excessively cropped sports photos
    • For wildlife exception, reviewers may demand nonetheless more resolution for subjects that can be photographed easily
    • After a period of six months we will discuss, if the implementation of 4 MPix and the exceptions had been a good approach or if there is the need of further finetuning

--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for the consensus finding

  • The time for consensus finding ends May 31, 2015 24:00 UTC - that is slightly more than one month and time enough even for those who are on a vacancy.
  • Every photographer who has taken part in the past with contributing photos to WikiCommons can cast ONE support votes - this will exclude sockvoters and it will avoid hazzles with subtracting opppose votes. I made a change to reflect the upcoming need for alternative proposals --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus forming section is not intended for discussion - for this purpose, please use the subpage Commons:Quality images candidates/Proposal to change the guidelines or the discussion section
  • The consensus will be taken on June 1st by counting the support votes of every single proposal. The proposal which accumulates more supportive votes will be taken as mandatory.

--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus forming (open until May 31, 2015 24:00)

Votes for a minimum resolution of 2 megapixels as a hard limit

Votes for a minimum resolution of 4 megapixels with exceptions

  •  Oppose zu hohe Hürde. als wenn 2 MP keine Qualität sein könne... --Ralf Roleček 09:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Please only ONE vote and only supports, no oppose as demanded in voting description. Bitte nur, wie in der Beschreibung zum Voting festgelegt, genau EINE Pro-Stimme abgeben, egal wo. -- Smial (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Comment Sorry but I don't agree with this methodology, where the discussion is kept away from the voting and we cannot oppose the proposals. Did I miss some prevoous consensus on the way to conduct this poll? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not miss anything. I was really surprised to see the voting start without further discussion, but while I've already missed votings on commons several times, I vote at once to be on the safe side. So it can not be said afterwards, the documents could have been watched long enough at Alpha Centauri. -- Smial (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The One vote procedure was fine as long as there were only two options and you had to decide for one of them. With the later addition of the 1600px option this procedure doesn't make sense anymore. Once again, this was done way too hasty with one person initiating a vote, and then other people modifying it while it was already running. Why not first propose a voting procedure at the dedicated sub-talkpage and collaboratively work on the details until everyone is fine with it? There's no need to rush this. --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im ausgelagerten Teil diskutiert ja keiner. Offensichtlich interessiert sich auch niemand für Alternativen, die tatsächlich eitwas vereinfachen würden. Stattdessen wird erneut ohne Konsens darüber, was man eigentlich bewirken will, herumgevoted. Das können wir jetzt so lange wiederholen, bis endlich das gewünschte 4-mpix-limit mit drölfzig Ausnahmen eingeführt ist. Ohne mich. -- Smial (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood from the first discussion, the big critics was not that we change the threshold but, that there was not enough time to cast a vote. And as far as I noticed, although your extra proposal didn't received much appreciation on the discussion page, I changed the voting to give way for your idea. I am working on a solution while you are keeping on with complaining. This is not very helpful. I am sure, you can do better. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to say so, but I have the perception that there is no interest to come to a solution but only to annihilate any approach. Since more than one week no one cracked another position on that discussion, but now, as I am taking action, the big complaints start. Anyway, I changed "one support vote" to "supporting votes" to reflect the requested need for another choice. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) On the contrary, I very much appreciate you taking the initiative to move this forward. But I wish you had posted a draft of your poll to the discussion page before starting the vote for us to comment on it. Now we have a voting system designed for a yes/no poll but 3 options to vote on, which bears some problems. Also people might have wanted to comment on the wording of the exceptions made for some types of pictures. Again, there's no need to rush this, so let's do it together and thoroughly. Lack of communication is exactly what killed the first vote, let's not let this happen again. --El Grafo (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood: I dont want to supress comments, but I want the comments not in the voting section. It was a good idea, to append this discussion section. However, I do not understand, what is unusual with casting only support votes. That is the normal procedure, isn't it? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the point of keeping the discussion away from the vote, but as you can see that only works if you have discussed it thoroughly before.
Nothing was wrong with the voting procedure when you initiated it and it is fine again now imho. Two simple options and one vote to pick your favorite is about as clear as it can get. But it got complicated when the third 1600px option was added. I might have preferred that over the current 2Mpx rule, but if I wanted to prevent the 4Mpx rule to happen, voting for 2Mpx would probably have been the wiser option for tactical reasons. See the dilemma? Now the 1600px option is gone again – suppose we can have another vote of 2Mpx vs. 1600px later in case the 2Mpx wins this one or something like that. But that's exactly the kind of chaos that could have been avoided. --El Grafo (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Metadata

I know this is not really a QIC-question but could somebody tell me if it's just me or if something is generally wrong with the parsing of EXIF-data? Please have a look at the metadata-section for example of this or this file. I saw the same with the files of other Common users, too. Am I doing something wrong or is this an issue of Mediawiki? --Code (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T97253
@Code: This is a mediawiki issue, which is tracked. I see that your example files have been generated using the new version 6.0 of Lightroom for Windows. I have experienced the exact same problem after upgrading to ver. 6.0 on Windows. It appears to be related to details in how the EXIF data are encoded in the new Lightroom version. I have the impression that it is mostly an issue if you fill in a description in the caption field as both you and I tend to do. The EXIF data are apparently encoded in a valid manner in the jpg file, but in a "new way", which the mediawiki software does not take into account leading to a pointer error.
In the thread I have linked, I describe a workaround, which allows you to re-encode the EXIF data in a Lightroom 6.0 generated jpg file using EXIFTools in a manner which Mediawiki understands.
It is a little tedious to setup, but once done, you can "fix" files by dragging Lightroom exported files over a batch script, which then generates a new jpg with the same file name, which the mediawiki meta data viewer is capable of decoding.
Hope this helps!
If you have questions, open a thread on my talk page. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Thank you very much! Your answer is indeed helpful. I hope the bug will be fixed soon. --Code (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information in Commons:Forum. It's a PHP bug found 2010.--XRay talk 04:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vieussan, Hérault 11.jpg

Hi, this image was promoted (archive) but was not assessed by the bot, must I renominate it? -- Christian Ferrer 05:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I clicked directly on "add topic" and I did not see that the question has already been raised above.[reply]

Problem with QICbot?

Do we have a problem with the QICbot? Yesterday my two promoted images (File:150501 Factory Berlin.jpg and File:150501 Berlin Nordbahnhof.jpg) were not properly processed by the bot. I did not check all of yesterday's candidates but it seems to be the same with other pictures, e.g. File:Puerto de Cotefablo, Huesca, España, 2015-01-07, DD 02-04 HDR.JPG. Do we have to tag them all manually? --Code (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Hubertl (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hockei, that was a big piece of work and I appreciate it very much. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Hockei! --Code (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Newbies ...

... it may be useful to add a list with common abbreviations like this:

CA Chromatic Aberration
DoF Depth of Field
CW Clockwise
CCW Counterclockwise
OE Overexposed
WB White balance
QI Quality Image
QIC Quality Images Candidates
VI Valued Image
FP Featured Picture
CR Consensual review
WP Wikipedia

--XRay talk 13:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Yann (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. -- Christian Ferrer 17:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1, but where to place these helpful acronyms? -- Slaunger (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --LivioAndronico talk 08:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Guidelines a good place for these abbreviations? --XRay talk 13:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It should be places at the end of section How to review with Frequent used abbreviations in the review process as subtitle. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to Template:Editnotices/Page/Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. A collapsible legend? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --XRay talk 10:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke QI seal for an already promoted photo

The File:Altes_Abgeordnetenhochhaus.jpg was nominated by Leit and promoted on January 16 by ArildV. However, as the photographer Dr. Chriss nominated a lot of photos with stitching errors, I asked him on his talk page to repair the stitching errors of this photo. However, upon his opinion, stitching errors are negligible when the photo is good and of high EV.

I disagree: Stitching errors are commonly considered as remarkable editing failures and do not represent the level of a quality photo. I hereby start a call for revoke for the said photo. I will remove the QI seal within 24 hours but will listen during that time to your opinions. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose We do not remove QI seals unless it breaks one of the objective rules (e.g. not being the work of a Commoner, or having insufficient resolution). For the sake of making QIC a simple, stress-free process, I will oppose any removal of QI status for subjective reasons as a matter of principle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No single action. If an image has been supported accidentally despite of technical mistakes, it should be sent to CR, as soon as the error was discovered. There the case can be discussed. -- Smial (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is not a subjective reasons, as stitching errors are severe edit failures. However, I am totally open to send this photo to CR. I just did not see this option four months after the promotion. So how should this be done? Move it manually to CR? Well, I am also a bit gobsmacked, that you don't comment on the stitching errors. The image guidelines adress the topic stitching errors. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By objective, I mean a hard fact that is mandatory for promotion. For issues related to technical quality, there is always a judgment of whether they are serious enough to block promotion, which does not exist for indisputable facts like authorship. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have carefully reviewed thousands of images here. All reviewers make occasional mistakes. I didnt see the stitching error--ArildV (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reproach to you, Arild; I know that your reviews are fair and exact and every reviewer knows that sometimes something is slipping through his fingers. I made annotations to the stitching errors; they are only visible on second view. My call for revoke is not against you. I tried to convey the fact, that stitching errors are severe edit failures to the photographer on his talk page. However, although he acknowledged the said failures, he also insists, that focus and encyclopedial value are more important than avoiding stitching errors. The talk is in German language, but you can use google translate to follow up. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stitching errors are errors. But clipping color channels or some unsharpness and many other cases are also errors. While judging in QIC regulary is done by one person (two eyes) and usually is working fine, I believe revoking a QI badge should in any case be done by at least two persons (four eyes). So a direct insertion into the CR section would be the most simple way to do it. I'm of course open for other ways to do so, if the four-eyes-principle is guaranteed. -- Smial (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. It would be good, to extend the CR rules in a way, that for postprocessing flaws and defects, which are not upon personal opinion (like stitching errors, posterisation of sky, jpg artefacts ...) it is possible to send them back to CR even when they already passed QI. This only should be done, after a call for re-editing on the photographers talkpage proofs fruitless within one week. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the File, that stirred up my concerns, I am happy to learn, that the photographer took the challenge and repaired the photo. This case is settled for me, but I appreciate a discussion of my proposal. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we allow it for this image, then it ought to be allowed for all images. So I think you should propose a change to policy and get it approved before proceeding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is going to be difficult to agree on what quality flaws could guide to the revoke of the QI stamp. But, even clear broken rules like not being the work of a Commoner, or having less than 2 MPx, are not documented as valid reasons to revoke the QI status. We should do that and add also 2 more cases: the QI award was achieved with help of a sockpuppet (author + reviewer) and file was a derivative work of another one (e.g. a QI is cropped and uploaded as a new file). Poco2 07:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like we need to use this rule sooner than expected. Denkmalhelfer and Derzno have been proven to be the same person. Krd is wondering what shall we do with (at least) these 2 QIs (there could be more), where reviewer and author were the same person: 1 2. Poco2 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment As a matter of hard response, I opt for revoking all QI status of Derzno's photos. People who dare to damage this project in such an infame way, should face the hardest possible reaction. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Info I requested to extend the CU on User:Cycling_zno. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am not very keen to remove the QI status because of a technical flaw, but I agree to do so for images promoted by socks. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Revoking of a QI seal given by a sock should be one way. Another is to discuss the image again. But it socks shouldn't nominate or review. So we had to add a simple rule: If a sock takes part in the review process, all seals of the images by this sock should be removed. All reviews should be reviewed again. It's a hard way. Using socks is not fair and a kind of cheating. --XRay talk 17:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum requirements for taking part in review

I observed, that we have a new "reviewer" which is inserting questionable reviews. Checking his contributions record, I noticed, that this user has zero image contributions and is acting only as reviewer for QIC. I don't want to assume, that this is a sock account of someone else, but the behaviour is at least irritating and it might damage the project as well as poisoning the atmoshpere.

Some other projects have for a good reason introduced minimum requirements for doing reviews in a projekt (FPC, POTY ...). In my opinion, we should have a clause, that is excluding people from reviewing, which have no record in uploading a minimum of let's say 50 or 100 photos. The reason is already in our rules - someone who is not contributing to Commons cannot be considered to be a Commoner. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pleclown: Commons is based on segmentation (User groups) itself based on experiences and capacities, why is it so extraordinary to ask a little experience in the QIC process? -- Christian Ferrer 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ces droits sont techniques. Il n'y a pas de cloisonnement dans les droits d'expression. Ta voix, comme la mienne ou celle d'un contributeur débutant, a le même poids dans les discussions communautaires. Pourtant je suis admin, tu es dans le club des "Plus de 10 featured". C'est ça que je veux défendre. Pleclown (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pas de problèmes Pleclown, je tiens à préciser que droits et devoirs ne sont jamais très loin, comme pas exemple le devoir de prouver d'un minimum de compétance avant d'avoir le droit de promouvoir une image. Et tu dis "Ces droits sont techniques", oui en effet la technique est aussi jugée dans cette page, on est donc en plein dans le sujet...-- Christian Ferrer 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merci de ne pas déformer mes propos. Techniques au sens wiki. Il n'y a pas de droit d'upload, pas de droit de "bon photographe", pas de droit de "bon graphiste". Et cela doit rester ainsi afin que nous restions une communauté le plus ouverte possible. Si vous voulez partager les qualités techniques entre spécialistes "invités", il existe d'autres sites dont c'est le but. Ici, nous cherchons à construire une médiathèque libre. Et c'est en accueillant le plus possible de gens d'horizons divers que nous réussirons à la construire. Pas en fermant tout. Pleclown (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non en effet Pleclown "pas de droit de "bon photographe", " mais un devoir de remplir certains critères variés pour voir ses images promus (comme la catégorisation, une description précise...), que seul des gens au fait de nos habitudes (et donc expérimentés) peuvent déceler. Et oui tous ces critères sont techniques. Merci de na pas répondre en mordant. -- Christian Ferrer 17:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Je pense exactement comme Christian --LivioAndronico talk 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Sure, But I guess, you want your photos judged by a photographer and not by a copvio hunter? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this user is a fine photographer, you don't know. I want Commons to be an open place, where we don't put people in small boxes. I want the rules be kept simple, I want everyone to stay mellow. Pleclown (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a good reason, Pleclown, why someone should play the good/bad cop game! It must be quite sure, that nobody assess double, or try to be the good one with his ordinary account and do questionable decisions whith his sock. Its extremely disturbing IMO. --Hubertl (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 10 QI and 50 uploads -- Christian Ferrer 04:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Pleclown. Yann (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as Christian Ferrer! It´s normal, that new collegues don´t assess in the beginning (We have many examples!) So everyone can start slowly. 50 uploaded self made pictures (inkluding correct EXIFs) should be the minimum. --Hubertl (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 50 uploads +10 QI´s is an acceptable limit IMO --Isiwal (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose To keep rules simple. If a user is a sock, this is a separate problem, which shall be handled administratively and via CUs. Rules shall not be bend due to this. If the reviewer is intially inexperienced and makes reviews, where obvious flaws are not noticed we have the CR process to get second opinions, and use this to engage in a (hopefully) constructive dialogue with the user. It differs a lot from user to user how fast the skill of reviewing is achieved. My advice is to keep an eye on new users and double-check their reviews, and when they "fail", please AGF, be kind and engage in a constructive (in contrast to a patronizing) dialogue. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you will know Slaunger, if someone is not working in the same QI -process with two different identities? In this special case, the user is experienced and also declaring himself as a sock. This has nothing to do with AGF. Beeing naiv is waste of time. If someone needs to have a second identity, maybe just to be the nice guy from around the corner when nominating his own pictures to get easy promotions, he really should try to find a different playground. You are not so experienced in Wikipedias, we have a lot of problems with User like this one. For them is having a bad mood a initial moment to disturb other User. --Hubertl (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime I found out, who this guy really is. He already have uploaded more than 100 pictures. But never nominated one for QI.--Hubertl (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hubertl: I don't believe that you know who am I and what is if you know? I don't know you either and don't take care. You had started very early to attac myself with "Vermummungsverbot". So for me it is clear that you (and a couple others) want to keep out folks like me with a differnt view on things as yourself. All people not sing your song will be your enemy? I'll feel here sometimes like in a kindergarden with protection of own claim. Sorry, I didn't start the fire and you should realy cool down and not play the supervisor here. --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Same rules like FPC, they are simple and fair Poco2 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The more I read the more I am convinced that a minimum of 10 QI for a reviewer (as an author) makes all the sense: QI is essentially a technical assessment, not a "like-type" phenomenon. As for the 50 uploads, I don't see the need because it would be redundant with the first one. Summing up: the same as in FPC (10 days, 50 edits) plus a minimum of 10 QI as an author. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  strong oppose Poco, the FPC requirements are 10 days 50 edits, not "50 or 100 photos uploaded". So this is not the same, and those rules are designed to prevent naive socking, not to ensure the reviewer has experience. I disagree with the concept that an image reviewer needs to be a high-quality DSLR photographer, and also the concept that someone who doesn't take and upload their own photos isn't a Commoner. If we consider my time as "a Commoner" to have started when I got my DSLR, then it took me about two years to upload 50 images. Perhaps I'm at the unproductive end of the scale! Instead, I started reviewing, uploading and nominating simultaneously, and the reviews helped make me a better photographer. If you bring this threshold in, you'll put off a lot of low-volume (but perhaps high-quality) photographers, and also totally exclude people who are capable of reviewing images well but either cannot or choose not to take/upload such high-quality images themselves. To take the "must be a high-quality photographer" analogy further, what if we had a rule that bird photos could only be reviewed by photographers who have taken 5 QI bird photos? Or a rule that building photos can't be reviewed by someone who's only ever taken macro pictures of flowers. For the macro photographer has no clue how hard it is to shoot with a 600mm lens and the bird photographer has no clue how to stitch a panorama. I don't know what recent trouble sparked this suggestion, but I recommend you deal with behaviour problems another way. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't suggest that. I know FPCs rules and would apply those here. I understand this thread as a place where everyone can express his/her opinion and mine is that the prerequisites for QI reviews should be the same like FP reviews. Poco2 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we all can support socket puppets. As it happens in this case. I do really not want this. --Hubertl (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin, this here is not yet a vote. It is a discussion and if it turns out, that a majority thinks, there is a need to set up minimum requirements, we still can precise the requirements and conduct a voting. Might be, that 50 photo uploads are too strict, but as a photographer, I want to make sure, that my photos are assessed by someone who knows how to operate a camera. And I really can better cope with a decline from an experienced photographer than from a someone who's sole experience comes from category handling. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well in my experience on Commons, someone will tally up the support/oppose icons and come to implement a decision sooner or later. It should be discouraged for sure as a discussion is best.
What makes you think someone has the best ability to judge a picture to be useful, high-quality, well-composed, appropriately-lit, etc, merely because they have held a DSLR and managed to point it in the right direction a certain number of times? In fact, the reviews on QI/FP often suffer from having over-technically focused concerns: noise, CA, distortion, clipping all seem far more important to many here than composition or lighting. We have far far too many reviewers who have mastered the basics of photography sufficient to generate some QIs but are simply not talented in the creative/artistic side of photography. They compensate for this by heavy criticism of minor technical issues while ignoring their own inability to judge the picture, not the pixels. These are the flaws of in-breeding and this proposal will only serve to limit the gene-pool from which reviewers may be drawn. Your alternative, that the person is experienced in category handling, is insulting and short-sighted. We do actually have lives outside of Commons, and many users here are older than teenagers so have "experience" in a whole lot of things. It is very common in life that to review and judge something is a far easier task, and may require different qualities, than being able to create and execute something. The restaurant critic need not be a chef. The wine taster need not have a vineyard. The book reviewer need not have a Booker prize. And the photo editor at a publisher need not be a talented photographer.
What I see instead here, is a concern that one's reviews might be being carried out by beginners, or by users who haven't already proven their abilities. But we were all beginners once, and we need to make systems that cope with this rather than exclude them. Look at FP and consider if someone proposed the same requirement on reviewers? We'd rightly complain that FP would then have a lot of terrible nominations by users inexperienced in what makes an FP, and wish that they'd perhaps gained some experience reviewing before making nominations themselves. So why does FP cope better with beginners - because there are other reviewers to compensate.
Most of QI's pains are due to the terrible UI and the resulting proposals are work-arounds for this. Like limiting the number of nominations or trying to restrict who can review. If QI had a trivially swift and easy UI, we could consider a two-vote system which is robust in the face of a minority of inexperienced or wrong-headed voting, yet still efficient enough to get through a large number of images. The current system is rather exposed to such poor voting, and requires someone to make a strong effort to challenge the vote (something which itself may be abused). That's the problem you should solve, rather than cutting off a potential source of good reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as per Pleclown. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support At least 10 QI and 50 uploads (o more!) --LivioAndronico talk 20:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I just tried to apply this proposed rule to my own case.
    • I placed my first vote on a QIC on July 17, 2007, before I had any QIs myself. In the period 2007-2010 I 'only' had a compact camera. I could not afford a DSLR at the time, and I sooo envied those who had the cool equipment, and I really wanted to learn. It was very challenging for myself to get QIs, simply due to the suboptimal equipment.
    • By the time I got my first QI on July 23, 2007, I had voted three times on QIC. If I look back at how I voted then, although I had no QIs at the time, I would have voted the same way today, many QIs later (of course taking into account that the 2007 bar is not the same as the 2015 bar due to the development in digital camera technology). The reviews were spot on and qualified!
    • On August 24, 2007, I got my 5th QI. Two of them also became FP. At that time I had voted on 37 different QICs, Many of them valid opposes, and no-one complained about my skills as a reviewer. If this rule had been in place back then, I would have perceived it as an unnecessary elitist barrier of no real value, and it is likely I would have been scared away from participating in the process and maybe Commons.
    • We have one very fine and simple process in QI today, which is also meant to counteract bad or dubious reviews, and that is 'consensual review'. It is the duty and responsibility of the experienced reviewers here, to keep an eye on new reviewers, but also sloppy reviews and nominations from experienced users, who have houndreds of QIs, but still do not scrutinize neither the reviewed photos properly, nor their own nominations. When a bad review is spotted (typically a-happy-go-easy-like-support), it is the duty of the experienced reviewer to contest that dubious review by opposing and thereby send it to CR. To invent a more or less arbitrary metric like the number of QIs for 'being worthy' to review QIs is alienating for new users, it is random rule, like saying that all those with red hair cannot participate. It is a slap in the face for those users who actually carefull review images without having the funds for acquiring a DSLR themselves.
    • Let us use the good mechanism we have already: Consensual Review! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose if the problem is someone making poor reviews then talk to them, tkaing photos doesnt make you a good reviewer likewise being good at reviewing a photo doesnt mean you are good at taking photographs. The FP rule came in because it was perceived that people were gaming the system, QI was about building and encouraging the community put barriers in place does neither Gnangarra 09:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 5 QI and 20 uploads; My eased compromise proposal. It makes sense to hinder trolling. --Milseburg (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Keep Commons free, and just follow the rules of the guidelines, they are good and sufficient. They just need to be read...--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I see no reason why people should be restricted from reviewing. If they're making bad reviews send the image to discussion and leave a message on the reviewer's talkpage. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- In theory the system is resilient enough to easily accomodate the assessments of unexperienced editors and correct them via CR. The real problem is, as mentioned above, the terrible user interface, which make us think twice before trying to to do it. It is not by chance that only a small number of (uncorrectly) promoted nominations is ent to CR. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In theory, the consensual review is indeed a tool, what we have - yes. But if someone cares to take a little bit time to check out the partly more than hilarious reviews of Denkmalhelfer, then he might come to the conclusion, that we really need another approach to defend this place against socks and trolls. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose New Method to keep people out of vote? Anyhow believe I have more experiance on pictures as you think but don't see any need to get my "buy in" while I'll need to upload something --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose No. Absolutely not. If someone is making bad reviews consistently, this is abuse. They can be asked to stop nicely in case they are not trying it, or they can be forced to stop if they are. We need no rule to govern this as we have plenty of existing procedures and hopefully a little common sense. -- Ram-Man 12:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think this would do more harm than good at the end of the day. Could live with using the FPC rule, though. Or a four eyes procedure where 2 supports are needed, but from past discussions I remember that this doesn't seem to be a popular option. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I’d just found this discussion (while I’d checked all the contribution of Denkmalhelfer) and hope it’ll be not too late for my vote. For me it is not acceptable that people can vote under several fake accounts and will blame or promote pictures without any true background. A valid vote here should be allowed to people only, which have a minimum or essential upload and a reasonable history. --Derzno (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose same opinion as Colin and Pleclown (hope I don't arrive too late) — 0x010C; ~talk~ 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

So, are we enforcing the new resolution guidelines, or is there no consensus for it yet? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion is moved away from here, nobody seems to be interested in further discussion. And so no consensus has been found until now. -- Smial (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a tough topic just like the GFDL issue. Here a lot of people still believe some restriction is better to make a living or to upgrade their tools. It can be either by a restrictive license or by down-sampling the freely licensed copy. I'm against it; but considering WMF's and WM chapter's lack of interest/support to help eligible contributor's, I'm no more interested to campaign for this Vedanta. (But I will continue uploding the highest version possible as my equipment is procured through community support. Hope we can run similar projects for eligible people like The Photographer.) Jee 02:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the voice of "many" in that RfC I linked above and in the failed RfC at EN:FPC (I think you remember that). Many people like Fir0002 already left this project. (Still most of the Wikipedia insect articles are decorated by his pictures though.) Jee 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was closed within 3 days. Many people later protested against that run. As I commented on your talk page; I didn't involved or participated in it. All I did is to close that discussion to avoid further disruption and redirect people to the newly opened RfC (by someone else). So anybody interested can start another voting there with a more time-span like one or two week. Note that RfC has more visibility than talk page. We can add it in central notice too if required. Jee 02:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of nominations ?

@ all,

Would you please be kind enough to provide different names of your nominations when you nominate several images of the same place ? it should be less confusing for reviewers, thanks in advance.--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As today, we have four noms with the same name...--Jebulon (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size requirement proposal

I've been thinking in terms of respect of the images of QI, I consider that the terms of minimum size requirements are not updated to our time. At the same time, I do not think it right to encourage the lower size the images to conceal errors or purchase of cameras instead of creating good photographers here. I would propose that the size required for QI is the maximum size provided by the camera. The purpose of this section is to provide quality images for wikis, with photographers of quality rather than quality cameras.

We encourage the photographer to approach the subject instead of using software tools cut. Thus, when evaluating the images we are being more fair, good photography techniques will encourage rather than good cameras. This is the best rule we could accept any different rule will exclude a lot of people. Then, some will ask, and what will happen with 20 years ago cameras?, Then, the same rule applies. If this rule is accepted the elite of large chambers will fall and we will see many users underdeveloped countries participating here. --The Photographer (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erm... 4mp ended up causing a storm in a teacup, and you're going for... full resolution? Aside from the fact that in many instances it's less than practicable, the licensing issues Jee mentions would be even worse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.Due to language problems, I didn't fully understand what The Photographer meant. But I remember I commented in some early discussions that people can upload an original file first and overwrite it with a down-sampled version if the quality of original is not good enough. It will help to explain that the down-sampling is for a healthy purpose. 2. Licensing: I don't think a 4MP GFDL 1.2 only licensed work is better than 3MP CC BY-SA/FAL or 2MP CC0. Jee 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed...

@all: there is help needed on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted. By the way, wouldn't it be an idea to categorize the pictures already on the nomination page? --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like in FPC ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not a bad idea. In fact, I'd even propose making it mandatory, i.e. failure to do so is a valid reason to decline. Although the workload has gotten better since the 5 per day limit was imposed, the volume is still quite high. By making categorization a requirement we can shift the burden from volunteers on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted (it's easy to see why not enough people are willing to do boring work like this) to the nominator, sending the message: If you can't spend the few seconds it takes to put a QI category on your nomination, then don't bother to nominate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support like KoH above. Yann (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about technical categories? --C messier (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also adds those, though the reviewer can change them if they feel a category is inappropriate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it should be a good way to use real categories instead of gallery pages or similar. --XRay talk 04:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A benefit of this is the ability to use multiple categories. For example, almost all of the images in the technical categories could have been placed in one of the subject categories as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange.

First: The way it is, I had the image also rejected. But the reasoning of this decline appears really absurd.

  • "Sorry but the wired is too disturbing"
Hell, yeah, there is a wire in front of the object. This is not nice, but wtf should a photographer do? Cut it away? Rent a scissor lift? Probably demolish surrounding buildings that hinder using a better camera location?
  • "and too much noise (why 560 iso?)"
Really looked at the image? Or only seen the EXIF data and concluded "iso560 is evil!!!!11"? The latter seems true, because if the reviewer had looked at the photo, he would have seen the strong CA and the slight barrel distortion. The image has rather low noise level which is absolutely acceptable.
  • "Not reparaible."
Of course the wire could be cloned out, if you have enough skills and useful tools. This would be much work, but also a falsification of the situation on that location. The rather low noise could also be improved, with much less effort. So "not repairable" is simply nonsens here.
  • "And perspective and sky overexposed (reparaible)."
Yes, perspective issues can be managed in many cases, though this is not always recommended, sensible and reasonable. But overexposed, blown areas are one of those cases which never can be repaired in a reasonable manner in digital photography, if you only have a single JPG. Using Raw format gives more headroom, but also has hard limits. In this case and increasingly many other cases on QIC I can only shake heads. POV as POV can everywhere. -- Smial (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smial 11 days I expect anyone to answer this thing ..... but nothing. I wonder why ... I wonder --LivioAndronico talk 15:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Decline here usually means: «this image could be done better, please try again with more effort». --PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know ... the guy is new --LivioAndronico talk 15:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move on to serious matters

Are two days that the bot don't promotes the photos .... is broke the bot? --LivioAndronico talk 15:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it run on labs? That was down completely recently … --El Grafo (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see nothing --LivioAndronico talk 15:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake photo as QI

File:Frühjahr im Dorumer Moor.jpg was promoted by XRay on 28 June, meanwhile it was disqualified from the Winner Top10 of WLE Germany, because of the faked birds' flock (you can see here several other collages with exactly the same flock). COM:Image guidelines: "Unmentioned or misrepresented manipulations, or manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.", so for my part  Support disqualifying it as QI, opinions? --A.Savin 09:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is not much room for discussion here. Poco2 10:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree too.--XRay talk 10:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Code (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. --A.Savin 23:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of QI of File:Світанок на Південному Бузі - район с. Самчинцi.jpg because of inappropriate license status

The image File:Світанок на Південному Бузі - район с. Самчинцi.jpg got QI status in June 03. However, the EXIF data say, that it is copyrighted and "Reproduction and use only with the prior written permission". This is against WikiCommons licensing rules. I wait three days for comments and/or change of EXIF and then will first remove QI and after that send to COM:DR. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License verification is beyond the scope of this sub project, unless we disqualifies licenses like GFDL only as in fpc. Even if we filter out some licenses that Commons accepts; we can't go further deep and check every wording. There are so many custom license tags and warning messages like "no facebook" which are very confusing. But they need to be handled at COM:VPC or COM:DR. They will be either deleted or kept after thorough discussion. So feel free to make any such move, if you prefer. Jee 06:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
License verifications is of course a scope of this project. The first rule is: "Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license." And here it is obvious, that there is a copyright glitch.
The "No facebook" has nothing to do with this. There is an official point of view of WikiMedia about non-conformity of facebook terms with free licensing. Don't mix up this topic with other things.
Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The photo in question has a license tag. Who cares what is written in metadata prior to the license release? Of course, every work is "all rights reserved" before a license release. We get a lot of permissions form people on request. Does that mean people need to recompile file and edit EXIF? These are beyond the scope of this page and may need discussion that weights a book. :) Jee 07:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the license of this photo is appropriate. It is a CC-BY-SA 4.0. The uploader is obviously the photographer, and he uploaded the photo with a CC-BY-SA 4.0 tag, so even in case he did not really know what a CC-BY-SA means, we (Commons) are on the secure side. The infos on EXIF data are in general not always accurate. Of course, if someone makes photos mainly for his commercial webpage, we cannot expect that he will adjust the copyright infos in his camera just to shoot a photo for Commons; but still, he can spend anything from his commercial project for Commons under a free license, and the license tag he uses while uploading is what actually counts. --A.Savin 08:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar issue last year with another outcome, as far as I remember. But if it is common sense, that copyright statements in EXIF can be different to the license template, then that's just the way it is ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this image was created in 2013, two years before being uploaded to Commons. During this time user could perfectly use it elsewhere and then upload it to Commons without changing EXIF metadata. Alternatively, this could have been kind of digital watermark to prevent copyright violations. In any case we have a correct license and the image was definitely uploaded by an author, so there is no doubt related to license status — NickK (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your Information

--Nightflyer (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need for an "ID please" page for unidentified organisms

I made a request at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Need_for_an_.22ID_please.22_page_for_unidentified_organisms. Your opinions appreciated. Jee 13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_12&oldid=169486873"