Commons talk:Quality images candidates

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

Mayfield Library Graffiti Query[edit]

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)

Candidates lost[edit]

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)

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

Voting proposal[edit]

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)

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)
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)
The idea sounds interesting. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
I want support "just with buttons, not editing a page", please, we need this functionality --The Photographer 02:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment an alternative of this kind of thing can be a non-automatic way, I mean not all promoted QI, just the nominated ones. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Finding QI[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
[2], [3] --Smial (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
+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)
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)
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)
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)
en:Three wise monkeys? --A.Savin 19:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Proposal for improving QIs and getting them into articles – Summary[edit]

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)

A question[edit]

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)

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

QIC review script[edit]

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)