Commons talk:Quality images candidates

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


The place where the butterfly photo was taken[edit]

We should write in the guidelines that images of animals or plants must have informations in the file description section about the place where the photo was taken, and also the relevant corresponding categories. This can be useful for editors who want write articles and for experts. I suggest to add something like that (it's not an official proposing):

Concerning the images of animals, plants or that relate to the living world:
The file description must have the most accurate possible information on the location where the photo was taken, even the geolocation if possible. This is so that experts can identify species or subspecies represented. This information may also be useful for people trying to illustrate an article about the flora and fauna of a specific location.

-- Christian Ferrer 09:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is already part of the guideline. See Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements #3: "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." See Commons:Categories; especially, 1. Types of reflected relations: a.en:Hyponymy and hypernymy eg: biological taxonomy b. en:Meronymy eg: geographical division 2. Categorization tips: a. what? / whom? eg: biological taxonomy b. where? eg: geographical division.
If this is difficult to understand I support to add what Christian suggested. Jee 10:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a fact that on only one day QI archive, we can find approximatively 15 QI of animals or insects. On this 15 images only 8 have a category for the place. And at least 4 images (1, 2, 3, 4) have not a single information (description, geotag nor category) on the place where the photo was taken. And it is only one day archive. IMO these images should not be QI, and that should be writen in the QI guidelines because the Commons policies are apparently not enough. The informations concerning these images are not enough accurate for a QI promotion IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 13:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Christian. --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is not too much expected, that we have a geo localisation and a geo category with the image. I am geotagging 99% of my images (sometimes it is not favourable, e.g. if I worked in the studio) and it is not a big effort to retrieve the location from wikimapia or similar maps. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Geo codes and place name in description are human readable; but not much helpful for sorting and for automated tools. For that purpose, we need either categories or tags. Mediawiki still uses categories; some other sites like Flickr uses tags. Tags may more useful; but as far as mediawiki is not upgraded, we need categories. (Moreover, it will save time of other categorisers who add cats like "Quality images of <location>".) Jee 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, that we are talking about categories :) However, geo locations are also helpful to determine, where the species was found. This cannot be done by a category; see this file as an example, what I expect in geolocalisation and categorizing. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes; geo codes are very useful. We made it compulsory (except for endangered species where revealing location may harmful) in COM:VI. I think we need same guideline for QI and FP too. :) Jee 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 In september, after the (european) summer holidays, we could do a series of proposals for to change a little the guideline regarding the subject that concerns us here. @Jkadavoor: When you talk about COM:VI, you mean geo codes compulsory for all images, not only for animals and plants? -- Christian Ferrer 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Valued image criteria #5: "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so. Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots, unknown locations, illustrations, diagrams, charts and maps, situations where the publishing of a location might be prejudicial (for example, privacy concerns, endangered species). Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field." For me geocode is preferred whenever possible. Jee 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is also a related dead page. It seems we need to revamp Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life and take serious approach to educate our photographers about the importance to provide taxa, location and other vital information. Jee 15:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I'm seeing some files categorized as quality images, but I don't see evidence of going through the nomination process. I'm not familiar with this process, so am I missing something, or should they not be categorized this way? Some examples:

These appear to have been created with Category:Quality images by country. I diffused them later, before realizing that there might be an issue. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being wary and removing the QI tag. The Category:Quality images by country indeed is only applicable, if an image underwent the QIC process. It seems, that already at the time of upload added the QI-tag. It might be, that the user used the file template of someone else and was not aware, what the QI tag is about. Well, assume good faith and you can approach the users on their talk page. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about organizing Consensual review[edit]

The consensual review sections are usually pretty disorganized, with people clearly supporting or opposing without an explicit support / oppose template. It's OK if I add these templates upon other users opinionss? I did that for File:Dreifelder_Weiher_im_Frühling.JPG and File:Wuppertal_-_Engels-Haus_02_ies.jpg. I am not asking for this organization to be made into official guidelines, just if anyone minds if I do it, or whether I am crossing a line. Thanks! --Xicotencatl (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Xicotencatl, as for me, I think you are right. As an old regular in these pages, it happens that I add by myself the Symbol support vote.svg Support or the Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in the Consensual Review section, in order to be clear for following reviewers. So did I, by the way, for my own last picture send in CR. Just be careful not to change a simple comment in a vote "pro" or "contra". If any doubt, one can ask the reviewer about his intention. Cheers and have fun here !--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed QI candidates[edit]

Ich verstehe die Kategorie Category:Unassessed QI candidates nicht ganz... dort sollen Bilder sein, die durch das Bewertungssystem gerauscht sind. Nun sind dort aber hunderte (gefühlte) QI dort kategoriesiert - das widerspricht sich. Ich vermute die sind ein zweites mal nominiert worden. Nun wenn die beim zweiten Mal aber ein QI-Bapperl bekommen haben muss doch die Kategorie Category:Unassessed QI candidates entfernt werden. Oder sehe ich das falsch? --Atamari (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Da hast du wohl recht. Ich habe das schon mal manuell gemacht, finde das aber nicht sinnvoll. Schön wäre es, wenn der Bot das könnte. (Im Grunde finde ich die Kategorie allerdings unnötig. Wer nimmt sich die vielen Bilder denn wieder vor? Ich lösche die Kategorie bei meinen Bildern immer.)--XRay talk 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Die Kategorie kann bleiben, es wäre aber sinnvoll dem User:QICbot (@Dschwen: hier ein mal ein kleines "ping") beizubringen beim Einfügen des QI-Bausteins auf die Kat zu prüfen und gegebenfalls zu entfernen. --Atamari (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh.. Gute Idee! :-) --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Danke für die Verbesserung. In einem zweiten Schritt die Bereinigung der vorhandenen Bilder. Also aktueller Bestand mit QI-Bilder prüfen, ob dort nicht "Unassessed QI candidates " dabei sind. --Atamari (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
OK. --Dschwen (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
...Et en français, ça donne quoi ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Voila! --Dschwen (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The declined images should be removed from Category:Unassessed QI candidates too.--XRay talk 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"an accurate description"[edit]

Hi everybody,

as a newbie here at the QI-page I have been stumbling a many times across pictures who have been promoted though their description is in the best case very basic, often details of vast areas whose description is the area name only. It might be a bush with the description "Central Park, NYC" or the hand of a sculpture described as "Tuileries, Paris". As the criterias ask for "an accurate description" I admit that I am often tempted to decline such candidates, because they are not helpful but I am hesitating as I do not want to start arguments as a newbie. Please advice. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Something strange happens in CR[edit]

After sending two smartphone photos of User:Tulsi Bhagat to CR, I observed, that two persons with the same family name and obviously same nepalese nationality appeared on the scene which never had uploaded photos but now vervently supporting the photos. Please have a look at the situation. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing against the rules for now, and not big damage, for now. To be continued...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, it is not against the actual rules. But as this showing up of friends has a bad taste, I can only hope, that the regulars here have a look on the image and that finally, an impartial review prevails. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
en:WP:FAMILY is relevant here. "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." It seems all users are from Nepali Wikimedia. At the same time, it is important note to bite newbies. I'll make a friendly note on his talk page. Hope they will understand. Jee 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)