Commons talk:Quality images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

3 Subject:People wont be moved by QIC bot[edit]

There are 3 people who are tagged to be moved by QIC bot but the bot never moves them. More confusing the QI categorization tool never saw the images. I tagged them to be moved myself. They appear to be honest images, what am I missing? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Those three photos were missing the prefix "File:" in their code. For some reason, this happens from time to time. If the "File:" is not there, the Bot can't read the code and move them. I have fixed that for you now. --cart-Talk 21:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Another thing i'll have to look out for from now on. Best Regards -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we add a category[edit]

I believe we should consider adding a category Objects/Religious to the available list. We have a lot of churches promoted to QI but recently there are a lot of religious objects being added making good categorization difficult. Architecture/interior is sufficient for church interiors, but I don’t know the proper place to put a religious object say a photo of a church candle or a pew bench. I also have difficulty properly categorizing cemeteries when there is no obvious religious structure or overtone. In any case I believe adding Objects/Religious could be prudent. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Sounds like a good idea. I'm all for making categorization easier. I have no idea how to do it though and I suppose QIbot will also have to be reprogrammed in some way. --cart-Talk 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I would not feel comfortable touching the script of QIbot, who might be someone to talk to about that? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Fuente en Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 227-229 HDR.jpg[edit]

This file, which is POTD for March 5, can be any moment up for deletion, since there is no freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan. I will not nominate it, since I do not want to disrupt anything, but I am pretty sure someone will, possibly exactly during the day the image is at the first page of 100+ projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • This is a widely used file and as you say a POTD. It would be courteous to send the same message to Poco a poco. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, also invited him here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    The fountain belongs to the Fountains Square, which is pretty old. It is though going to hard to find evidence of the age of this fountain, and as everybody knows here, us, the photographers, are guilty as long as the opposite is not proven. So, you can do with it whatever you want, no feelings hurt Poco2 20:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC) PD: Strange spot to talk about this topic, better would have been in the POTD talk page.
    As I said, I am not going to nominate the image, but there are a lot of users who will do it just for fun. I am sure the fountain is modern, likely post-1991.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)