Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 30

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Removal of QI status

I haven't find out how to start a discussion about QI status removal. This image is quite sub-standard per comments here. — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre. Promoted 6 January, 2024 (link - 13th line) by Damayantidwi (user page doesn't exist) and Eka343 (author). Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was obviously promoted against the rules. Don't know how to demote it though, is it enough to remove the template? Plozessor (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no process to demote a quality image. However, the nominator's vote is obviously invalid. And User:Damayantidwi has less than 50 edits on Commons, but considerably more on other wikis. So the question is whether their vote was also invalid. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eka343 is confirmation enough to remove QI as a bad faith edit, as well as removing QI from the other 5 promoted at same the time. Those that arent by Eka343 should be renominated so as not to be tainted by these events. The innocent victims should be notified of why the changes. This should only happen once the the CU request is closed and any blocks are in place. Gnangarra 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why only Commons user's file are eligible?

I am just curious as to why quality images must be the work of Commons contributors? As a consumer of Commons' images, I don't care if they came from NASA, flick or a Commons user. Of course I greatly appreciate that Commons users are the backbone of this project though. Commander Keane (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm I should have read the Flickr section above before posting, sorry. As Kritzolina pointed out the reason is in the purpose which states
"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."
And Gnangarra said that
"QI is about recognising the efforts of our community".
That is fair enough, but I think QI has grown so large and important for Wikimedia projects that it may be time to open it up to outside sources of images. Is there a way to recognise good images from all sources? If not, then perhaps QI should be forked to allow all images. I think a main client of Commons images is Wikipedia and when looking to add the best images to a Wikipedia article a metric like QI is invaluable. But Wikipedia doesn't care if the author is from Commons or not (I guess most Commons clients don't care). On the other hand I wholeheartedly agree with supporting our community. I am just not sure that excluding others from the best classification system in this project is the way to do it.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally images scraped from other sites should already be of the standard required for QI. Gnangarra 07:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, you don't see them, if you only look for Quality images. Someone might be looking for a quality image of a small town for example, to add it to the page of the Wikiarticle in their language. They see there are QIs of that town in an extra category. Unfortunately none of them shows the main square which would be ideal for giving a good impression of the town. So the user goes for one of an important sight as second choice. He doesn't notice that there is a high quality image from Flickr in the general pool. That is a bit the conundrum ... also, I did import a number of images from Flickr which might not meet the QI standard, if it was the best image available of the subject I could find under a free licence. Kritzolina (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally means exactly what you said, sometimes the best available photos isnt QI standard but its all that can be found at the time. As an example this one thats over hundred years old it's the only photo I could find. We dont need a QI type process to decide or reward these photos, we have better mechanisms to recognise collections through the WMF Communication team who are always looking for ways to promote collaborations. Maybe there's potential for a historical photo upload competition to gain a more concerted effort though the down side is people hold back uploading for the window of opportunity when the competition is running, unless it a year long submission process. Gnangarra 11:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, We already have had this discussion recently: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/05#"Commons:Quality imports". Please see Commons:Quality imports. Yann (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of QI status for File:Baths of Maria de Padilla, Alcázar of Seville.jpg

As per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Creator, image must have been created by a Wikimedian to be eligible for QI status. Where this image is by a Flickr user. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Flogaus-Faust, @Gnangarra FYI ... Plozessor (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have remove the QI status of this image, Gnangarra 06:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I've not nominated this file for QI. I still don't know who did it. May be checking history of QIC page will help but I don't want to spend time. Юрий Д.К 06:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The archive Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 31 2024 says that this image was nominated by User:Señor Aluminio. I haven't checked the logs, but I don't see any reasons why I should do that. It is allowed to nominate images by other Commons users, but apparently the nominator falsely assumed that Юрий Д.К was the author, not just the uploader. This is a common mistake. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was my mistake. When you do it through the application, the alleged creator automatically fills you in, when it is really the one who uploaded it.-- Alu (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15-17 Strada Jules Michelet, Bucharest (32).jpg

File:15-17 Strada Jules Michelet, Bucharest (32).jpg was promoted QI on Feb 17 though the first comment is from Feb 18, how is that possible? Was there already a promotion and someone deleted it? (IMO the picture is clearly on QI.) @Robert Flogaus-Faust, @Gnangarra ... Plozessor (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated twice, see Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_February_17_2024. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupted file as QI

File:Marquee of the Senator Theatre in Chico (detail)-L1004109.jpg

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you have already informed @Frank Schulenburg: ? --Smial (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Smial. Not sure what happened (Hamsters eating my images?)… Anyway, I re-uploaded the same version and now the servers seem to be fine with it. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the problem with subsequently(!) corrupted JPGs occurred frequently years ago, at that time due to server problems. Sometimes only thumbs and the reduced image versions were affected. --Smial (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations per day

Hi,

I would like to propose a change regarding the number of nominations per day. Currently, users are allowed to nominate up to 5 images, based on a decision made back in 2014 when there were many contributors. However, I believe it would be beneficial to limit the nominations to 2 per day, and not allow the same user to nominate both images. In other words, if a user nominates one image, the second image they nominate should be from a different account, to ensure a fair distribution.

This change will provide more time for thorough reviews and prevent the page from becoming overwhelmed with nominations. I welcome any suggestions or feedback you may have on this matter.

I would also like to notify some active users, @Ermell, @-Poco a poco, @Michielverbeek, @XRay, @Agnes Monkelbaan, @Tournasol7, @Rjcastillo, @D-Kuru, @Johann Jaritz, @MB-one

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This question comes up every few weeks ;-) I am against reducing to 2 nominations. It's important that everyone rates at least the same number as they nominate. Unfortunately, there are some people who rate very little over a longer period of time. --XRay 💬 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, I would even suggest a maximum of 2 nominations if no ratings are given, but up to 10 nominations if the same number are rated - within a few days. --XRay 💬 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support reducing the number per day to less than 5.
 Support reducing to 2.
 Oppose requirement to nominate other users' uploads.--RZuo (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this cheating? Both not signed.--XRay 💬 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three were left by @RZuo: in one edit, hope removing the line separation to make this clearer is OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose reducing the number of nominations, would support increasing them (XRay's suggestion of making this contingent on rating is interesting!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nominations are certainly too many to be reviewed properly, as shown in the section #Corrupted file as QI above, a corrupted file with a large grey part could go unnoticed and become QI. RZuo (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Would rather increase than decrease the limit, probably to 7 or 10. And, it might be difficult to implement but we should require people to review other pictures, as already noted by others. Like, you can't nominate unless you voted for XX pictures in last XX days. Plozessor (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point, but I think it should be implemented with certain conditions for contributors who review the images. For example, they should have a minimum number of edits or possess a certain number of quality images or featured images. This would help ensure a minimum level of credibility for the reviews. Riad Salih (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose reducing the number of nominations. I try to upload only QI pictures, if the nominations were reduced I would upload less.The proportion of damaged images will certainly always remain the same because to err is human. XRay's suggestion to make this dependent on the rating is correct, but that would have to be controlled somehow. Ermell (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to encourage contributors upload good qaulity images, seriously you would upload less. The purpose of contributing is bigger than a QI stamp, as nice as they are. Gnangarra 02:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose the proposal and would support XRay's proposal, indeed interesting because it sounds fair. Who reviews more (and is also capable of doing so) should be empowered to nominate more. Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per XRay and Ermell. Although I encourage to nominate other users' images. MB-one (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I am not enough of an expert to review other users' pictures, but in the past I nominated some very few of my own, and it would be sad to me if I was excluded from nomination when reviewing becomes a precondition for nominating. I totally appreciate the work that the reviewers do and I try to contribute to Commons in other ways where I have more expertise. Having said that, I have no strong opinion on the number of nominations per day. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is ok. The issue is that we certain people have nominated hundreds of pictures without ever reviewing a single one, that won't work in the long run. Plozessor (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I support and oppose this with pretty much he same amount. However, I would rather go with a redesign of a the website as better approach. Right now it's simply a good amount of work to vote even with the voting helper (that sometimes does not work at all). My suggestion rather is to make voting easier and make it possible to have more than one vote per image. I would love to contribute more, but at this stage in my life I can not even keep up with the images I make (having like way over 1'000 unprocessed images )-: ). However, if voting was faster and easier it would be possible since it wouldn't take that much time. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. if it can be as simple as for example the new way of replying, by clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit. RZuo (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit", isn't that what QIVote does? Plozessor (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i arrive at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list.
i dont see any buttons.
so i click "edit source" next to a date header.
in the edit window there's a red bar "Click here to activate QIVoter helper!".
i clicked. nothing happens. no buttons.
i've tried finding out how to use those qi helper gadgets before, but never succeeded, so i just gave up, and only nominated or voted by editing the wikitext. RZuo (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo, @D-Kuru Ahh of course that is complex as hell. Go to "Preferences", "Gadgets" and enable "QIVote". Plozessor (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (or thankfully) written text on the internet does not have any tone of voice to it. So I (do not) wonder what you meant with of course that is complex as hell. "even with the voting helper" - the helper is better than nothing but not anywhere near a decent voting tool. "that sometimes does not work at all" - It simply isn't build to do anything else than promote and decline so other edits end up breaking the template. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Kuru Sorry, I didn't intent to offend you. I just was wondering 'why are they complaining that it would be so complicated, it does not seem like this to me', and when I found that RZuo did not know the QIVote gadget, I understood. I also mentioned you in my reply because you also said that it's complicated. I am aware that all these gadgets are poorly documented, so it's for sure NOT your fault if you didn't know them. Btw, QIVote works fine for me. Very rarely there are edit conflicts, which is why I usually submit my changes after a maximum of five reviews. Plozessor (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thx. indeed with qicvote it's easy enough. RZuo (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment what is the cause for the need to reduce the number of nominations, QI is here to encourage contributions? How can that be addressed through other means. Ancedotally I encountered a couple of outreach activities where Affiliates encourage or even require people to nominate submissions to QI, so perhaps a more successful solution is in another box. Gnangarra 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

License plates and GDPR

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to discuss, but couldn't find any better, and couldn't find any relevant information from Commons help. My question is about car license plates on pictures. For my understanding, clearly recognizable car license plates combined with an exact timestamp and an exact location are 'personally identifiable information' per GDPR, which is why I have usually blurred them in my pictures. Now, several users tell me that this is an imaging defect (which may be true but still I won't violate the law to create better pictures). How do you (especially the users from EU) see this? Or can anyone tell me where to find relevant documentation or past discussions? Plozessor (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK there is no need to blank out the license plates for images from Germany. Whether you are allowed to publish such photographs may depend on what your intention is, at least according to [1] and some similar pages. It is not allowed to take photographs of a car with readable license plates with the purpose of identifying a person (and their possible misbehavior) and publish it so that the photo can be accessed publicly, e.g. by taking a photo where the car is parked illegally and complaining about this. However, I am not a lawyer and I may be entirely wrong. And I don't know anything about other countries. So this is not an image defect IMO, but you should probably mark an image with blanked license plates as {{Retouched picture}}. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are worried about legal consequences because of license plates, do not take or publish such photos. If you anonymize them in a clumsy way, don't ask for QI status. Lothar Spurzem, for example, often put a lot of work into making license plates that looked "natural" but didn't actually exist. I'm not saying that everyone should do this, because it's still basically a fake, but it should be legally safe and some people accept the procedure for QIC. --Smial (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_30&oldid=875597330"