Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 19

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Category:Unassessed QI candidates

This category contains hundreds of images, which have the QI label. How come? How to clean up the mess? --Smial (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply drop the category. The bot should be updated. I always remove this category from my images. If noone reviews the image, it isn't good enough. --XRay talk 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings in QI

Hallo, the ratings in QIC are becoming more and more difficult to understand. There is, for example, the totally distorted image of a tractor praised though it is not qualified to show the reality in the least. On the other hand excellent, encyclopedic valuable images such as the tympanum in Altamura and the arcades in Bologna are rejected as useless. The technical quality of both photos would be good enough to use them as print templates for books. I do not understand these now exaggerated demands in QI and fear that it will come in the not too distant future as well as in Wikipedia KEB that hardly anyone presents a picture. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons in democracy. Wiki* activities previously soured many of my ideas of the goodness of democracy (one person, one vote). QI is old enough to have eras. I was fond of the "no nest photography" era in which there was a lot of activity here from active biologists. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible changes in QIC rules

There has been some talk in Commons talk:Featured picture candidates of changing some QIC rules. Since this is a better place to discuss such proposals and perhaps come to decisions about them, here are some proposals that were made on that page, with one made on this page now added:

  • a) tightening up criteria for composition (but in what ways?)
  • b) tightening up on the requirement that QIs should be valuable for Wikimedia and other projects (again, in what ways?)
  • c) requiring 2 positive votes (or a majority of 2) for photos to pass QIC
  • d) reducing the daily maximum of nominations to 3 or 4
  • e) allowing appropriately licensed photos by non-Commoners to be nominated and promoted at QIC
  • f) establishing a procedure to de-list QIs
  • g) requiring all users to nominate one picture by someone else for every four of theirs

For the record, I'm unsure whether a and b are needed and would be interested to see specific proposals. I support c, though it's a challenge with the number of submissions and users we have. And it's really only in that context that d probably becomes necessary, but I wouldn't want to reduce the daily maximum below 4 photos per user. I support e and really don't see why QIC uniquely excludes worthwhile photos by non-Commoners.

f is most important to me. As technical standards progress, what was considered acceptable as as a QI 12 years ago may no longer fly today. And there also have been photos that got through because one person thought they were good enough and no-one else happened to look closely at them. I would propose that any user should be allowed to nominate no more than two photos a day for de-listing, which don't count against their total nominations (or do, if you prefer), and that each nomination for de-listing would be successful only if at least 3 more users vote to de-list than to keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a, c, d (only if c) f (with a limit of 4 weeks). And additional removed the category for unassessed photographs. Why? (a) IMO composition should be more important for a qic, it should be the most important criteria, (b) No, we should give photographs not valuable for Wikimedia/Wikipedia a chance, (c) QI become better if they are doublechecked, (d) if 2 positive votes, 3 or 4 photographs a day are more than enough, (e) why non-commoners (I remember all the useless Flickr images), (f) to much if more than 4 weeks, but 4 weeks are acceptable. And: It should be more easier the review an image. --XRay talk 07:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 4 weeks? Are you thinking a delisting thread could be up for 4 weeks? If so, I think that's too long. Otherwise, I don't know what you'd mean, as QIs much older than 4 weeks should be possible to nominate for de-listing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose QI have never been intended as some kind of lower-level-FP. The proposed changes want to introduce exactly this. QI are intended to encourage commoners, these are people, who work activly in wikimedia projects, to make and upload images, that meet some minimum standards. QIC is a mass project with focus on technical quality. I do not oppose fine tuning of some of the QI criteria, but I'm strongly against changing the proven principle. I'd like to introduce one other rule: For every four nominations of own images must be nominated at least one image of another commoner, so we hopefully get more participants and more diversity over time. --Smial (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you oppose giving work by non-Commoners the QI title, but what about the other proposals? Do you think, for example, that there should be a procedure to de-list QIs? I appreciate your quick response to these proposals, but it would be helpful if you would at least state which ones you oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I also like your proposed new rule and have added it to the list above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was not intended as a new rule, but only as an idea how to get more participants. I'd suggest to strike it from the list above. --Smial (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Smial about a) I've not a big problem with b) but the agreement of a rule set can be tedious, I'm unsure about c) or d) (what is the background for that?) poor reviews and too many noms? Nothing for/against e), pro with f) and fine with g) Poco2 19:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although well intended, I think there could be a problem with g). Not all users nominate 5 photos at a time, some nominate just one or three or whatever. How do you keep track of people actually following such a rule except for "scout's honor"? --cart-Talk 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The topic g) is new. I think it is a contra. I tried to find photographs that are good enough for QIC. It isn't an easy task. Sometimes there are good images, but not 1 of 5. The result would be to nominate an image which will be sure declined. --XRay talk 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For a) I agree in principle, but the detail would need a separate discussion I think. For b) I agree that there must be a liklihood of use to illustrate a topic somewhere. For c) I strongly agree. For d) I oppose any limits. For e) I oppose as the whole purpose is to encourage Commoners. For f) I agree. For g) I strongly oppose as the idea is to encourage contributions and not to encourage trawling through looking for other people's contributions to nominate. In fact I would add "h) prohibit the nomination of images from other users". -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The h) you propose would be very unfortunate and counterproductive for the site. As it is, people very seldom "trawl through" Commons looking for something to nominate. Most of the time this possibility is used is after events like WLM or other "Wiki loves ...". A lot of newbies contribute during those events and the organizers from the participating countries nominate the best photos from the individual competitions, since the new users have no clue about QI or anything other than the "Wiki Loves..." they participated in. When such images pop up at QIC because of this, they usually get noticed by users who are used to FPC and gems are forwarded. That is how I found and nominated this photo and also this one. I know other users also pic up and nominate great photos from QIC that might have gone unnoticed otherwise. Why should we not encourage and bring forward photographers who are not part of "the usual suspects" at QIC? --cart-Talk 20:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that in QIC we encourage photographers to nominate their own work, and not for others to nominate it for them. That's what I mean for h), to encourage full participation in QIC. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it would also require some kind of functioning guidance program for new users/photographers perhaps similar to the mentor thing that exists for newbies on en-WP. On Commons, new users are pretty much left to discover things on their own, often in a discouraging and harsh way. We lose many good photographers because of that. They simply never make it into the community. --cart-Talk 21:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support any rule that would raise the QI threshold in a clear and explicable way (c+d), support possibility to delist (f), oppose unclear requirements (a+b), and strong oppose any rule that would encourage even more clique building and "scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours" than there already is (g). --A.Savin 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's rather a complex list of possible changes. Too many to get agreement on. I wonder if instead it would be more productive to query what people think the purpose of QI should be? Some aspects seem to be designed to encourage Commons photographers. Others seem designed with our re-users in mind. How much does a Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project usage matter vs some vague potential for educational purpose? Many of the recent rules or proposed rules about limiting nominations seem to reflect a failure of the forum to function properly or efficiently.

I am concerned there is no quality rating on Commons that indicates to users of our photos which are "good" and which are "crap". Or could that even be a scale rating? If I look at a category, the only tool I currently have is either to try the "Good pictures" button and hope that it actually works, to attempt to judge the quality from a tiny thumbnail, or to look at the MB file size. All of these have their problems. QI ignores photos not taken by the uploader and is ridiculously concerned with pixel-peeping 24 or 36MP images. Should an image be challenged, then there can be many paragraphs of discussion over an image that is frankly just "meh". The UI for QI is just awful awful. If we had something closer to the tools used by Wiki Loves Monuments, then this would vastly speed up the rate of review and at a more reasonable image size perhaps. It would mean that double-voting might be feasible if desired. I think it is time that QI stopped trying to be "as technically good as an FP but without any artistic merit or wow" and simply served the users of Commons to help them find good images. If it was faster, easier and less fussy, then some of the concerns about back-scratching or restricting nominations would disappear. -- Colin (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this false pi day is a good day to discuss the PumpkinSky and Halfgig problem. There was a sincerity to the PumpkinSky and Halfgig uploads, votes and all over gooeyness. It is also a more interesting reason to determine how this old boat will ever float. But I enjoyed my QI days here. I might not have learned the right settings for my camera, but I did learn how to get great encylopedic photos here and how to fill the frame nicely and what crap jpeg artifacating can do in such a beautiful or at least useful way. Whatever restrictions you apply might lighten the load and pep it up, but you also might lose some pano opportunities. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I strongly oppose any proposal to prohibit people from nominating others' photos at QIC. That kind of rule is just mean and I don't see how it could serve any useful purpose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone would like to spin off a new thread to discuss any of these proposals separately, be my guest. I started this thread in the hope that at least we could start a discussion, which has happened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What if the winners of the photograph contests were dumped immediately into QI (via some software) for a technical review? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that prohibiting people from nominating others' photos is "mean". We should encourage them to nominate their own work and benefit from the comments made in review process. Sure others could suggest to them on their talkpage that they have a photo worth nominating and even help them do it, but what is the point of nominating someone else's photo for them, especially if they are not informed and remain unaware. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I or anyone else thinks a work merits recognition as a QI, it should be nominated here, in part because the designation is helpful to editors in other Wiki projects looking for good pictures. For the same reason, when there are Commoners who want to nominate images produced by non-Commoners, they should be free to do so. I edit a lot on Wikivoyage, and whenever I've looked for photos with which to illustrate Wikivoyage articles, I generally look first for FPs, then for QIs and then for VIs (assuming the search function is working on Commons, which nowadays usually is not the case), and only after exhausting those possibilities do I look at photos that have been given no mark of recognition. All the designations are useful. I think considering QIC as only a place for photographers on Commons to nominate their own photos is overly self-centered for Commons and unnecessarily heedless of the Wiki-wide usefulness of the QI designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree to your view, that qi is first and foremost a service for Wikipedian and other post-users to make it easier to find suitable photos. Therefore it must be possible to nominate pictures of other photographers. This is not a competition about who has the most QI, although some participants seem to understand it that way. A restriction would be detrimental to our project Wikipedia. Extending to non-commoners photos should be discussed separately as this would change one of the basic rules of QI. I would point out that such an extension could possibly lead to a flood of images that could not be coped with by the active participants here and could be demotivating. --Smial (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There could be more restrictive guidelines about how many non-Commoners' photos a user could nominate each day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see anything about the purpose being "first and foremost a service for Wikipedian and other post-users to make it easier to find suitable photos". According to Commons:Quality images candidates#Purpose: The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. How can it do that if they don't even know their image has been nominated? Better, I think, to suggest on their talkpage if one spots a likely candidate, and prompt them to nominate and reap the intended benefits. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that the QI designation is useful to editors of other Wiki projects? The reason it's useful is that they are quality images, not that they are produced by Commoners, or simply nominated by Commoners and shot by others, and it doesn't matter one whit to editors of other Wiki projects whether the person who nominated them also shot them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand that a by-product of the QI initiative is that the QI seal helps consumers of images narrow their search, sure. But as the primary stated purpose of QI is to encourage provision rather than consumption then I think we should be targeting rule changes towards achieving that goal. OTOH, if we think the goal needs modifying, then we should raise a discussion about redefining the purpose. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the argument that x and y are the rules, guidelines or purposes is not the point when we're discussing possible changes. In other words, it's absolutely fair to point out that what's being proposed is a change, but purely the fact that it is a change is not per se a viable opposing argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I state in my previous reply, I thought we were discussing rule changes not purpose changes. I'll happily discuss purpose changes too though, if someone starts a thread for that. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates lost

Within the last few days some of my candidates are only removed. No archive, no promotion, no QI template. I don't know why. This photograph is one example: File:Münster, Beresa, Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse Cabrio -- 2018 -- 1711-5.jpg --XRay talk 06:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the difference: [1] --XRay talk 06:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The archive of March 29th is missing too. --XRay talk 06:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just created an empty archive. Feel free to add your promoted photographs of March 29th. --XRay talk 06:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting proposal

There is a gap between QI and FP. Some QIs are better than other, good enough for QI, not good enough for FP. IMO a possible solution could be an additional voting. For example like this:

  1. QI candidate as before
  2. Promoted photographs (QI) will be automatically moved to a second page (or can be nominated by the author or any other person, if they are already QI) for voting with rules like this
    • Everybody with at least 100 edits and and least 50 reviews at QIC can vote
    • Everybody can vote only one time per photograph
    • Criteria: Composition of the photograph
    • Simply voting, only pro and contra, just with buttons, not editing a page
    • Voting only for a week
    • Result:
      • 50% pro votes: bronze QI
      • 65% pro votes: silver QI
      • 80% pro votes: gold QI
      • At least two votes

What do you think about that? --XRay talk 05:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem rises with the criteria based on composition of the photograph. There exist featured pictures that are great in terms of composition, but technically they would never have passed QIC because of "errors" like being downscaled, noise, not being tack sharp and detailed at 100% and other things. --Granada (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another criteria may be possible - or no criteria. Like the voting of the picture of the year. --XRay talk 07:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea sounds interesting. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? that is not killing the current system but is is an additional thing. I am not against. I like too the flickr "favorites" system, that count the number of "fav" and make a ranking. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want support "just with buttons, not editing a page", please, we need this functionality --The Photographer 02:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finding QI

The basis of all these discussions about QI criteria and grading them, is presumably to make it easier for users to choose good images for articles and other works. But how are they going to find them? The gadget you're supposed to click on to see which images are FPs, QIs and VIs almost never works and when you look at a category with all the thumbs, there is no way of seeing which images have these stamps. Because of this, QIs and even FPs are overlooked all the time as illustrations for articles. AFAIK the French WP is the only one that systematically searches the recently promoted FP category and insert FPs into articles, so their articles have random photos and FPs while the QIs are overlooked. There is no way you can search the very big and clumsily organized QI categories. The images have no captions, they are displayed per year all on one page rather than the normal categories where you get a maximum of 200/page, so hard to handle if you don't have a good computer with a good connection. Until this is fixed in some way, all the FPs, VIs and perhaps three shades of QIs stamps are more about rewarding the photographer than making the photos available to other users. -- Cart (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asking myself all the time, why many QI authors do not make efforts to find usage for their photos in WP/WV articles. I do. --A.Savin 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you Cart, and have thought exactly the same for a long while. I wonder what can be done to try to make the gadget thing reliable, it is quite good on the odd occasion when it actually does work. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just like A.Savin, I like to make my photos useful if they are fitting for an article. I also do the same with other users' good photos. That may be more natural for me since I originally come from WP and I'm used to improving articles. Just a small caution here, not all QIs are better for an article than lesser quality photos in a category, since the QI may be taken from say an artistic angle while the article writer(s) is looking for a more comprehensive photo. Getting the FP/QI/VI gadget working properly would be a good first step, but just like all Commoners are not used to the WP, there are many WP-editors who are unfamiliar with Commons. I don't think everybody knows what that gadget is for. The best thing would be if there could also be an indicator on each thumb with the stamps. I know that some Commons users do that thing when they present their photos in their own galleries. There must be some way of letting a software add some indicator to thumbs automatically. Or...? -- Cart (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't search for a possible usage of my photos as I do it the total other way round: before thinking of visiting a certain sports event for taking photographs I more or less carefully check for the necessity for pictures in Wikipedia articles of the sports people, staff and e.g. TV-presenters (Kristina Inhof ...) that I could shoot there. The action shots I sometimes nominate for FP are a by-product while mainly trying to take portraits of the players for their articles before the matches (opening/hymn ceremonies, warm up, interviews etc.) and after. Commons is not my private gallery. --Granada (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any way of collecting photos for articles is good. I too do planned photo sessions like walking along the whole Visby City Wall to document it or visit all of Gotland's 93 churches for a list article. But sometimes things just happen. LIke some days ago when I was at a hospital for a checkup and to kill time while I was waiting, I took some photos. (Go pocket cameras!) Back home it turned out that there were no photos at all of that hospital on Commons. Now there is a category and some articles about sleep studies very unexpectedly have pictures. That is what I mean by making photos useful. -- Cart (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do it two ways: either the article has no photo so far and I'm the first who has contributed one (but today it's rather rarely the case); or it has a clearly inferior one and I replace it by mine with the same (or more appropriate) motif. There are lots of articles, including prominent subjects, where there are still low-quality material from the 2000s / early 2010s (overexposed sky, perspective distortion, low resolution, etc.). You don't have to search long. In de:Lysekil, just as example for Cart, the only picture is this one :) Or take this Red wine photo, it's less than half a megapixel, overexposed, but still being incredibly widely used. So, to all who take photos of relevant subjects, I can only advise: go ahead, be bold and replace low-quality material, don't hesitate to do it in foreign language projects too. When there is already appropriate high-quality illustration, I don't replace it: to avoid misunderstandings, for me it's not about "pushing" my uploads at any cost, the first priority is always the quality content. --A.Savin 00:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an easy task to add QI photographs to WP. And sometimes it's frustrating. Just yesterday I tried to replace a photograph in very low resolution with a not suitable perspective with a QI. Some minutes later all edits were reverted. Sometimes there are editors they love their own images and they are reverting edits with other images. And sometimes you get stupid remarks. There should be a better way to present FPs, QIs and VIs, so others will see these photographs more prominent. So readers of the articles will see the good ones better in each category. This is very important since all the awful panoramio photographs overfill the categories. --XRay talk 05:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Hostile behaviour and "ownership" sometimes occur, but this isn't normal. As for me, in much more than 90% all is fine. Where and in what article have you been reverted? Maybe I can take a look. --A.Savin 10:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[2], [3] --Smial (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these two edits were right. I've made a cropped version of the image. May be it's better. --XRay talk 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you change a photo in an article it is always best to leave a note in the edit summary as to why you did it. If you skip that or just write "photo" people who look for vandalism on pages are likely to just revert your edit since vandals change photos all the time. If you write something like "New better photo showing the whole church, sharper photo, better resolution and quality." it is much more likely to stay. If you don't know the language of the WP, use English. If the article has no photo at all, the problem is usually smaller since they are just grateful to get a picture for it. -- Cart (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
English or French or Russian WP as well as smaller WP's are usually no problem to replace. German and NL are the most hostile ones, but even there it's mostly OK, even if you just add "new photo" without further explanation... --A.Savin 11:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is this user Rode raaf who is editwarring against XRay and now also against me. Maybe a Dutch-speaking colleague can help to explain. --A.Savin 12:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally authors prefer a technically inferior picture because of a particular or unique design. This should be respected. --Smial (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 There is no reason for an edit war. There are some editors with the same behaviour in WPDE too. And in Wikimedia Commons, for example with some funny sortkeys. If there is nothing really wrong, I leave it as it is. - -XRay talk 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is the same as XRay's. After this edit I decided not to add any of my pictures to Dewiki any more (there was a bad night picture of Berlin Potsdamer Platz and I replaced it with my FP and got reverted). Just an example - there were lots of similar edits before. It's way too frustrating. --Code (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this case is a bit different -- they had not reverted to the old picture, but hidden the third picture completely. This may be understandable, as the article at that timepoint really had too much pictures in relation to the text. Anyway better than block me in NL wiki )) --A.Savin 18:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy. I stopped nearly all activities at WPDE because of too much unfriendly behaviour. There are too much incomprehensible rules like seen in Codes example or your example in WPNL to propose better images on a discussion page. That's not a good WP way and not good for all the authors. --XRay talk 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
en:Three wise monkeys? --A.Savin 19:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endless discussions and missing "gute Kinderstube" (in german). It's better to spent my time taking photographs. --XRay talk 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above discussion illustrates very well why it is so important to find a way of making high quality photos on COM more visible and easier to find for the people writing articles, since we can't count on Commoners adding them. Stamps on thumbs (sort of like the way XRay and others have on their user pages) would be the best start. That way they simply can't miss which photos are of better quality and maybe think twice when they choose photos for articles. Let's get back on track discussing how to make visibility happen. -- Cart (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another idea is to coordinate drives between Commons and various WPs. For example: On en-wiki there are always different monthly drives like "Improve articles about women" or "Asian article month", whatever. There could be room for an "Improve images month / Update old photos in articles week". These could be reoccurring drives. -- Cart (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for improving QIs and getting them into articles – Summary

Let's take a closer look. A few thoughts on my part.

So my proposed improvements:
  • A: Show QI, FP and VI seal at the images in the categories (image, name and seal).
  • B: Add filter especially to categories for QI, FP and VI.
  • C: Add categories for FPs, QIs and VIs for location and subject.
  • D: Ask Wikipedians for improvements of the illustration of the articles. Good photographs should be a part of a good article.
  • E: Add VIs to Wikidata. If there is no suitable VI, add FPs and QIs. There should be one good photograph for most of the entries in Wikidata.
  • F: Improve reviewing of QIs, VIs and FPs in the same manner - and keep the process simple.
  • G: Improve categories with thousands of images.
  • H: Repair FastCCI.
  • I: Add an user option: "Show QIs, FPs and VIs in a separate section at all categories." (between subcategories and images)
  • J: ... and: My proposal with bronze, silver and gold QIs.
--XRay talk 05:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Everyday many wikimedian nominate many pictures. And some wikimedian review them. But can i comment there? Or cai i review a picture with my opinion? Is it possible? I ask it because i am not an experienced wikimedian. As an example, i saw an image which has perspective fault, can i add my comment there? Thank in advance.-Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. Feel free to add your comments and votes. --Verum (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QIC review script

Hi guys, Only FYI, I'm working on a user script to do the review procedure easily. My idea is do the vote only with a click. It is not ready yet, but someone interesed could see it. Thanks --The Photographer 02:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your script seems to have some side effects. Please test it in a sandbox somewhere and please repair the mess, thank you. --Smial (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I allredy did that on a sandbox, could be usefull let me a list the "side effects" to fix it. Thanks --The Photographer 11:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting tons of underscores in user's comments make them unreadable. I don't know what happened here and here . --Smial (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smial The bug is fixed, let me know if you see something more. The Gadget reduce considerably the complexity of the revision process, Now reviewing is something much more fun !!! --The Photographer 23:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard signature on QICvote.js

Hi The Photographer,

I fixed the signature which was missing two dashes and didn't use the format prescribed on top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. I used the code in MediaWiki:QICSigs.js and you can find the adapted code in User:Trougnouf/QICvote.js's __getSignature() function. This only changes the final submission and not the preview.

I also removed ui-button-blue right away (that is the reason I forked in the first place) because I found the blue boxes everywhere to be very distracting.

Good work,

--Trougnouf (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trougnouf +1 Please, you could overwrite the current QICVote, could be interesting add the icons of  Oppose and  Support when the user is voting in the preview (Not in the confirmed review). Please, comment it on QIC talk --The Photographer 21:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure where to post initially, I moved the discussion here. I was going to merge the signature bit into your script directly but MediaWiki complained about: "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: You do not have permission to edit this JavaScript page because it contains another user's personal settings.", I don't know what causes that. Thank you for incorporating that change (and the blue bit)! --Trougnouf (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you merged "summary: "Reviewing nomination(s) with QICvote (fork)"" along with the rest, it points to my sandbox/fork of the script instead of QICvote. --Trougnouf (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trougnouf, Please let me know of any change I will put it on User:The Photographer/QICvote.js, however, the idea too is improve the source (refactor and jquery dom access) and ask to a admin to transform it in a Gadget. --The Photographer 00:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield Library Graffiti Query

I've taken an image of the Mayfield Library in my community. My question or query is since it is a .JPG (in capitals) as file extension, would changing it to a lowercase .jpg would that upload to the same file? File:Mayfield Library Graffiti.JPG --Adamdaley 02:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdaley (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, extensions are automatically converted to lowercase. If you use the Special:UploadWizard link then there will be a message warning you that the name is already taken, you won't overwrite a file unless you explicitly go on the image's page and click on upload a new version of this file. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New QIC voter script

@W.carter: @Erhelion: @Christian Ferrer: @Crisco 1492: @Ezarate: @Ikan Kekek: @Cccefalon: @Steinsplitter: @Dschwen: @Nightflyer: @Alvesgaspar: @Slaunger: @BenAveling: @Tony Wills: @Poco a poco: @Colin: @Milseburg: @Basotxerri: @XRay: @Famberhorst: @Martin Falbisoner: @Daniel Case: @Agnes Monkelbaan: @Johann Jaritz: @Halavar: @Trougnouf: @Basile Morin: @Lmbuga: @Bgag: @Vauxford: @PJDespa: @Fischer.H: @Peulle: @Uoaei1: @Charlesjsharp:

Dear guys,

I want inform you that is ready to use the QIC voter. This Gadget reduce considerably the complexity of the revision process and prevent any edit conflict and yes Now reviewing is something much more fun !!!. How use it? follow the next steps:

  1. Edit your common.js
  2. Add a line with importScript("User:The Photographer/QICvote.js");
  3. Ready!! now you will see a combobox bellow for each thumb image on QIC
  4. To vote simply select your votes/reviews/comments using the combobox
  5. Add a review message
  6. When you finish all your multiple reviews, now you can click the buttom "Confirm reviews"

Please, feel you free of let me some comment or sugestion here. Thanks --The Photographer 17:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Altough I'm not very active on QIC I have to say that it looks really good and I'll give it a try. Thank you very much for your work! Feedback on the script itself will come later. --Code (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Code: , @Christian Ferrer: , @Johann Jaritz: and @Ikan Kekek: This is not perfect but it is better than it was before. QIC was a stone in my shoe until today. --The Photographer 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your effort! It works well! I most like the possibility to hide reviewed images although I'm a bit afraid of missing the QIC I have to object the first vote which brings me to the second most discussed point: add an option to make a QIC only green when it received at least two pro votes. :) --Granada (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lol, thanks @Granada: It is fixed now. I will added the additional options when the current version became stable --The Photographer 19:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @The Photographer: , thanks for your efforts to improve the interface. I tried to install the gadget, unfortunately the script is not working with me. I got 2 red warning messages "Third template, please remove" for the 2 reviews left. Then I tried to revert my edit in the history, but couldn't find my name and modification in the list. Also during my attempt I tried to hide the reviewed QIC, and when I turned it on again, many days had disappeared. Would you need a screen capture, I've got one. Good luck in fixing this ! Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: thanks for your feedback. I fixed both problems and also a syncronization problem (When two users are trying vote over the same nomination if there is a negative over a positive vote now it will change automatically the nomination to Discuss) --The Photographer 19:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you The Photographer for this tool, it will save time when all problems are gone. This is my feedback after using it once:
  • I reviewed 5 images and after pressing "Confirm reviews" it frooze after stating "sending reviews", nothing happened. Later I reviewed only one image (a different one) and it worked.
No idea, I can't reproduce this erro --The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should use the current time stamp: "07:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)" instead of "Mon, 30 Apr 2018 07:52:08 GMT"
I will work on that this weekend --The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC) ✓ Done by User:Trougnouf --The Photographer 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You shouldn't add a breakline for the first review (nice to have request)
✓ Done --The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Poco2 07:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks from me also. I also have a request, if it isn't too much work: There is already the option "Hide reviewed nomination". Can you expand that filter to "show only promtoted" / "... declined" entries? --Magnus (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on that this weekend --The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Tsungam: --The Photographer 00:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the script not work with new nominations maked incorrectly, for example:
File:Litlington_April_2018_02.jpg|{{/Nomination|Farm in Litlington, East Sussex. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 19:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)}}
It should be
File:Litlington_April_2018_02.jpg|{{/Nomination|Farm in Litlington, East Sussex. --[[User:ArildV|ArildV]] 19:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)|}}

--The Photographer 01:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Photographer: I just realized that if I comment with the script an image that was declined it is set back to Nomination. Would it be possible not to change the review status (whatever it is) when it is commented? Poco2 08:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Charles, I'm working on FPC voter and I will finish with the more importand project IMHO VIC. --The Photographer 22:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overprocessing

Why does on numerous pictures the sky have to appear darker than its reflection on water surfaces? A pesky newfangled naughtiness that unnecessarily restricts the encyclopaedic usability for the sake of a cheap effect. --Smial (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What images are you referring to? It is possible the reflection covers a different part of the sky, which is lighter? There's nothing newfangled about this: photographers have been overdoing ND Grad filters for years. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment?

Is there a process for images that have already been promoted to quality-status, to be re-reviewed? Specifically, is an image containing factual errors compatible with that received assessment of "is considered a Quality image"? -- 188.26.167.148 10:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Often discussed, but no. IMO it would be too much work to do. There may be a lot of images taken years ago that can't fulfill todays requirements. And there may be some with errors. I found some of my own photographs with errors, but already QI. I fixed the issues. So you may ask the author to check the image. --XRay talk 04:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geotags Help

I used to tag my photos with ACME Mapper were you could position the mark on the map and read the decimal coordinates. Now ACME Mapper returns a notice "This page can't load Google Maps correctly". Anyone knows how to get the geotag with some other application? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.geosetter.de/ --Smial (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error reversion

@Johann Jaritz: You made an edit (this one, promoting GT's pictures) that has seemingly glitched up so I've reversed it. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 12:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Censor bar

Speaks anything against a Quality image because of censor bars in the faces of people (for privacy, de-personilazation)? --Neptuul (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QI images promoted on August 28 2018

What happened with the pictures of August 28 2018? On Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_August_28_2018 one can find all the pictures promoted on that day. But on any of the promoted picture's page you wont find it marked as QI. Somebody please take care of this. Thank you. Chme82 (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dschwen: , will QICbot take care of it, or should it be done manually? --MB-one (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MB-one: I think QICbot is not working now. --Laitche (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Laitche: can you show an example? --MB-one (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MB-one: Not sure, though my photo which was promoted about a month ago, was not added {{QualityImage}} then I manually added it some time ago. --Laitche (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted

The page needs some attention, again growing too big. --Smial (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan WLM2018 finalists

This year on Wiki Loves monuments Tuscany uploaded more than 40% of Italian images (italy being one the top countries in the world). The final selection (top 1%) was published here few days ago. if someone is interested in promoting some of them, please help yourselves. The newbies are not even aware of the process so I hardly doubt they will push for a recognition. I think that one or two will be very suitable for the home page. Bye.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly promoted file

File:Wikimedia Conference 2018 by Nirmal Dulal (30).jpg suddenly disappeared from Consensual Review. I wondered where it went and found it in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted. But look at the October 25, 2018 QIC archives! It had a tied vote, 2-2. I don't know how this promotion occurred, but it should be reversed, and the file should be returned to CR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was set to promoted before QICbot run. I don't know when. --XRay talk 08:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at [4]. The next contra does not revert the promotion. --XRay talk 08:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's interesting. Well, I was in favor of a promotion, but since after it was erroneously put into CR, others opposed, it's too bad that discussion couldn't play out, since there's no way of pulling a QI designation after the fact. Thanks for explaining. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Das verstehe ich nicht. Wenn eine Datei einmal, auch versehentlich, bei CR gelandet ist, kann man es einfach so wieder auf "Promotion" umschalten? Auch wenn es inzwischen Gegenstimmen gab? Abgesehen von der völlig unterirdischen Qualität dieses sogenannten Portraits: Wo steht das in den Regeln? --Smial (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake. IMO the QI label should be removed and the image should be CR again. --XRay talk 05:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QIC limits

Hi everyone,

I would like to show here a certain problem that I'm struggling with. I think that the limit of 5 nominations per day is too low. I don't know when it was introduced (maybe it has since always) and what the reason was. My guess is that there is a limit so that there will not be too many entries, and to avoid skipping them.

However, I think that this limit is too low. I don't know how it is with other users, but I'm in default with nominations of about 2.000 photos. Think now that these photos, although they may be good enough, don't inform commons users that they are good quality. It seems to me that there are a few or a dozen people who probably also have a lot of pictures waiting for the nomination.

I have several suggestions:

  1. Abolish all limits – probably unrealistic.
  2. Increase the limit to 10-15 a day – you can change later depending on the results observed.
  3. Leave 5 nominations per day, but give bonus: 1 check = you can add another nomination – I think that a interesting solution, but difficult to respect.

I encourage everyone to discuss. Critical comments are welcome. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnes Monkelbaan, Basile Morin, Basotxerri, Berthold Werner, and Bgag: @C messier, Ermell, Famberhorst, GT1976, and Ikan Kekek: @Isiwal, Jacek Halicki, Jakubhal, Johann Jaritz, and Llez: @Moroder, Peulle, The Photographer, Poco a poco, and Rodhullandemu: @Trougnouf, Uoaei1, XRay, and Ввласенко: a some "pings". Tournasol7 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment My points of view:

  • There should be a limit, otherwise some of the more eager photographers will flood the board with nominations, resulting in 1) other photographers' work disappearing in the pile, 2) too much work for reviewers, resulting in more images not being reviewed (rendering the process moot) as well as reviewing being less thorough.
  • If we increase the limit, it should not be set too high (probably 7-10), since there is no limit to the number of similar images that can be promoted. If the limit is set higher than 10, I propose a new rule: that very similar images cannot all be QIs, as this would devaluate the QI status.
  • Giving people extra noms if they review images should be limited to +1 (not 1 per reviewed image), since that can encourage people to review more quickly (reducing the thoroughness).

--Peulle (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tournasol7: The limit was introduced after this discussion and poll, it was quite a fair step given the disproportion of number of nominations vs. active reviewers, and I strongly oppose a return to unlimited number of nominations as well as any increase of the limit. --A.Savin 20:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Per A.Savin - IMO we should keep the current regulation as is. It encurages the nominator to select his best pictures, avoids flooding and helps to cope with reviewing.--Isiwal (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This limit was because the difficult to evaluate and edits conflicts in the reviewing procedure. Today with the tool QICVote, the procedure is very funny and fast. However, Its right have a limit and I think that we could use a limit maybe 7 pictures is ok. --Photographer 00:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me 5 nominations /day is good. Compared to FPC, only 2 noms /9 days (or rarely 5-6 days mini), it is about 20 times more. I can believe some users here are more productive or talented than others, and thus feel limited, but for the majority, that rule certainly helps to select their best works, on the quality level but also on the aesthetic / useful level -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your valuable initiative. I am able to relate to all the pro & con statements above. The actual status of 5 noms per day fits very well, though I could agree with a slight increase up to 7 noms per day. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Johann. A minor increase, yes, but nothing else. --XRay talk 05:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One additional candidate per day for people who categorize at least their own images at Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted. --Smial (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a compromise: allow a maximum of 6 photos per person per day. But what is QICVote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Gadget-QICvote.js. --XRay talk 07:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Basile Morin -- Ввласенко (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally happy with the 5-images limit. Proper editing, describing, categorizing, and reviewing of 5 images a day takes a very significant part of my time, I can hardly keep up. Of course some people may be faster or would want to spend more time on it sometimes so that's just how I feel about the limit and I wouldn't be against any change to it so long as we aren't flooded with questionable content from Users who underestimate the process and requirements. --Trougnouf (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 images per day is fine for me. Quality is more important than quantity. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I always said the key is not the amount of allowed noms, but rather the balance between images that are nominated and images that are reviewed by each user. Back then I nominated 10 images per day and always reviewed more than that. Increasing the current limit to e.g. 10 would stress the process if many users don't review at least as much as they nominate, that is maybe too much. I believe that incresing the limit to 6-7 would be no problem, and in that case, we can always come back to 5. So, an increase to 7 would be fine to me for a period of 2 months, and then we decide whether we ran into problems or not. Generally speaking I believe that increasing the bar is IMHO good for the project as more quality content is identified/tagged. --Poco2 08:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created this topic, so I will try to get a small summary after reading all the comments.

I'm not agree with Isiwal; taking a good quality photo is relatively easy. The best selected photos go rather to the FPC. Thanks User:The Photographer and its QICVote tool checking the nominations is enjoyable and works without conflict edits. This is an argument for raising the nomination limit. User:Basile Morin; I wouldn't like to confuse FP with QI. For me these are two very different processes. In my case I don't have a problem with taking QI, but often my pictures aren't suitable for FP. And even after selecting my photos, there are too much to report them all for QIC. Poco a poco presented a very interesting proposition. It's important to keep the balance between the added nominations and their checking. An increase of up to 7 nominations par day and seeing the effects seems interesting. Tournasol7 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November, 6th

Hello! Someone has duplicated all nomination from November 6th and older. I just removed these duplicates. Hopefully no nominations or promotions were deleted ... --XRay talk 20:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this mistake: [5] --XRay talk 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Got a weird edit conflict notification and assumed, the Nov. 6th nominations were deleted otherwise. Thanks for fixing it. --MB-one (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bot failed

Hi! The bot failed today (December, 11th). May be there are too many errors. I fixed a lot of unmatched brackets within the last weeks. Today I can't - with my mobile phone. --XRay talk 05:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheye distortions

Hi. As part of helping someone's self-designated quality images turn into real QI-assessed photos, I am pre-screening Category:Quality images of Egypt (Choosen by Muhammad Adel) according to a few of the more objective COM:IG guidelines. I came across several fisheye lens pictures of buildings/architecture and was wondering if such purposely distorted photographs have any chance to pass QI? --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_19&oldid=335411300"