Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive/2010-02

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

Contents

Reviewing images is such an enlightening experience[edit]

Just want to say that participating in reviews in the past two weeks gave me an entirely different perspective on the review process. I learned a lot from other's comments and from my own third-party evaluation of other's images. I'll just say that it is true one (i.e. I myself) is often blind to one's own defects. It is often easier to find fault in other's work. This has indeed been a humbling and at the same time eye-opening experience for me. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Delisting QIs[edit]

I know the issue of delisting QIs has been raised before at least two times (here and here), but no consensus has been reached so far. I think not having a delist process would assume that QI is infallible, which I don't think is the case. I agree with those who argue against a delist process based on shifting standards (i.e. delisting images which were promoted 3 years ago but do not meet current standards), however there should be a way to delist inaccurate promotions of images which did not meet the guidelines of their time (for instance promoted in the same month or year). This would allow for instance images promoted not so long ago which obviously do not meet most basic criteria to be delisted. The proposal is to introduce a delist section, where QIs can be nominated for delist if is considered that they were promoted in error. I would agree with a former proposal by Alvesgaspar that the process would need to be a consensual review and require a 2/3 majority as well as a minimum quorum of let's say 3.

Here just one example: this image has been declined in July 2009 but than renominated and promoted in January 2010. It cannot be argued that it was promoted because of the increasing standards nor that there is a consensus on it being a QI. Now regardless of the issue of renominating an already declined image, IMO there should be a way to re-asses images in a consensual review process. (PS. btw could somebody archive part of this talk page as it is getting very heavy). --Elekhh (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

btw archive done manually, those links are probably now brokenGnangarra 09:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
first linked fixed to archive, now 2nd link is fixed Gnangarra 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
QI is a oneway system that relies on people being fair and reasonable in their assessment of images, situations like this will occur occassionally where people have different opinions on an image thats what CR is for. I've argue against a review in the previous discussion because QI is as about encouraging our community to not photograph the sexy wow images but to also make the effort to provide good technical quality images of the mundane. Its also important for the community to have fast efficient review system without the drama if the cost is an occassional image slipping through I dont see a real problem. If its demostarted that QI is being significantly abused then change the current process to stop the abuse, remove the images involved but we dont need editors spending time looking for an occassional images. Gnangarra 09:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, I have to agree with you that the system should not be unecceserally complicated. That wasn't the intention of the proposal. I also can tell that the above example is certainly not the only case of doubtful promotion. So how do you suggest resolving such issues as the above? --Elekhh (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by Lawboy25 - advice required[edit]

User Lawboy has started harassing my nominations in FPC, QIC and VIC after his/her photos taken in North Korea were opposed by me. I tried to explain to him/her that such opposes were not personal and that he should practise more and learn from these forums, but the message was erased. Now, things are becoming annoying because most edits made by this user in the last two days are systematic attacks against my photos/nominations. Before making a formal request for blocking, I'm asking for advice of the community (yes, I'm aware that Lawboy25 is most probably a socketpuppet of someone else due to his knowledge of the nomination processes). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly some of Lawboy's edits were not in good faith, however I see why he/she took you comments too personally, as you were the first one to provide feedback to many of his/her nominations. I would suggest don't let this conflict unecesseraly escalate, so keep away from each other for a while, and let others comment on both your nominations. Will leave a message in this regard on Lawboy's talk page. Elekhh (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just want to check[edit]

As many of you may know, I have a lot of old books of engravings. Now, photographs of artworks are permitted here, and I could see the logic being extended to scans by Wikipedians (though you'd be well in your rights to ask for a bit more from a scan than a photograph, as scanning is intended to allow for much higher quality reproduction of very specific types of images). Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, a scan is generally superior than a photograph with regard to the digitization of books. Of course, the quality of the scanner should be good and the settings should be optimized for such purposes. --JovianEye (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that scans by Wikipedians seem to fall within QI's scope. I have little experience with scanning, so I can't comment on what requirements would be appropriate for them, and I'd be hesitant to review them at first. If we start to get many of them, maybe the image guidelines should be expanded to cover scans specifically (as they do already for panoramas). --Avenue (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

QI bot fault?[edit]

Last noon some promoted pictures were removed from the QIC list but no QI templates were inserted or messages sent to the nominators. Two examples: File:Lavatera April 2010-4.jpg and File:Sonchus April 2010-1.jpg. There may be many more. Bot fault? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mh yeah, this can happen if the bot finds itself is unable to contact the Wikimedia servers in the middle of a run. Simple solution is adding all removed candidates (anywhere on the page) and wait for the next run. I will do this now. --Dschwen (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've just started a manual bot run after copying back the archived candidates. But there is a large database lag currently, forcing the bot to edit reeeaaaly sloooow (five minute breaks after each edit :-( ). So we'll have to wait patiently. --Dschwen (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It happened again last noon, this time with the nominations in Consensual Review. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There should be no difference whether the nomination is in CR or not. Which are you referring to? --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Ha! Found it. It was caused by a renamed image (which makes the image description page a redirect page). --Dschwen (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Two consensual reviews I closed on 30 April are still there after 3 days... --Elekhh (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Those were badly formatted for some reason. The Image is supposed to be on a line of its own, which is how the bot prepares it when it moves the nomination to CR. --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

CR closure[edit]

Something is going wrong with the closure process at Consensual Review. According to the rules, nominations should be promoted or declined 48 hrs after a decision is reached or, in case of draw, stay for the maximum period of 8 days. That is not what is happening. Nominations are sitting there for variable periods of time (usually much longer than 8 days) and eventually closed when someone notice them. This introduces an unacceptable arbitrarity in the outcomes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that the rules of the process need to be clarified, however I don't see any increased arbitrariness by having a longer period for feedback. Quite the contrary: a longer discussion allows for better judgement as proven in many cases IMO. Given that there is no delist process, I think is very important that promotions are correct and indeed represent consensus. The problem is with immages which are really "on the limit" in terms of satisfying QI criteria, and there are diverging oppinions whether it should be considered just in or out. I would rather question if an image with lets say 5 supports and 4 opposes really represents consensus and should be promoted. I think the rule of 2/3 majority like on FP would be closer to the meaning of the word. --Elekhh (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Disagree about 2/3 majority. No need to change anything here. If a picture clearly does not meet the explicit QI standards then it wont get any support. Edge cases do not matter. They are obviously pretty good images, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten any supports. Please say goodbye to the idea of having this process work without any arbitrariness whatsoever, that is a completely unrealistic fantasy. We just have to keep the fuzz zone (images that may or may not be promoted) sufficiently narrow. And more importantly we should not care about individual images too much. Yes, pride might get hurt, and we might loose a QI on one side, and on the other side we might promote an image that should have barely not made the cut. But screw that, barely not meeting criteria is still a zillion times better than the average upload here. And it is more important to keep the process simple to allow higher throughput of candidates (that being said: too many CRs are being opened in any case!). Higher throughput will more than compensate for the occasional lost candidate that should have been promoted. --Dschwen (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
      • And what about the issue raised above? If the rules aren't used any more better to get rid of them! I'm not talking about individual picture but about agreed criteria, which should be followed with no exceptions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
        • My post was a reply to Elekhh's comment, not yours. --Dschwen (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Interesting your conservative attitude here, as well as Gnangarra's above. The "fuzz" zone is huge IMO. And there are many other flows, such as incorrect promotions cannot be corrected (raised few months ago), unclear closing procedures for CR, and no real assessment of "value" is happening. --Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, I don't think that it is huge. I have a little challenge for you: go to Special:NewFiles and try to find 5 good candidates for QI. Count how many pages of crappy uploads you have to flick through. I do that from time to time, to get the perspective straight. Even at the low end of our fuzz zone, out promoted images are miles above the average upload here. --Dschwen (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Better to give up to anarchy?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sure you are subtle enough to understand shades of gray. So are you casting the world in black and white just for teh sake of teh argument? --Dschwen (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Proposal -- Let's then be constructive (not subtle, Daniel; I'm more like an elephant in a .. well, you know where). If people are lazy and consider too much work taking proper care of CR (I still remember doing it alone by hand), why not simplifying the rules and improve the bot a little? Here is my proposal: Drop the 48 hrs period. All pics stay for review at CR for a fixed period of 8 days. The bot makes sure that the closure time in shown at the top of each nomination, like in FPC. Thoughts?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be a welcomed simplifcation of the closure system. Speedy closure should still be possible for withdrawals, and maybe other instances for keeping the Q as short as possible. --Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok, that's fine by me. I will gladly implement feasible proposals for the bot. Just keep in mind that the bot cannot count votes, so the status must be set by a user to either promote or decline. However the bot could leave a note when voting should cease. --Dschwen (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Is it just me, or they're not working properly anymore? They don't support line breaks anymore, and sometimes the voting parameter is not displayed... --Eusebius (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Flooding[edit]

Generic subsection for editing ease[edit]

Seems like lately QI is beeing flooded. Can we work out a set of rules for lowering the number of these ? It's very distracting to see many images by the same author as it makes it harder to judge the rest.

I would propose no more than 6 images every 3 days. But please, let's discuss.

--ianaré (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree, nominating a series of identical images is ridiculous and affects the normal functioning of QIC. It also reveals, in my opinion, some lack of respect for the volunteer work of the reviewers. Let's put a reasonable limit on the daily and weekly # of images. For now, I agree with 2 per day, as Ianaré. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I fully agree, 2 images per day seems a good rule.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The guidelines already state that "Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon". Which can be interpreted as 2 per day, it is just not clear enough and not at all reinforced. I guess one could just simply improve the wording and become stricter by removing from the list everything in excess of 2 per day. Elekhh (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. There is a difference between two per day and 6 every 3 days though, I don't see a problem with putting 4 or even 6 in one day, but then you would not be able to put more until 3 days have passed. This may be harder to enforce however.

I'll try to come up with some proposals for consideration. I'm not sure how to go about making any of this 'stick' though, as I'm not an admin. --ianaré (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't see considerable flooding on the QIC page? I know that nobody likes to point fingers, but to simplify this discussion: I don't think that even ComputerHotline is currently "flooding" QI. As far as I understand QI (and I have by no means the interpretation monopoly, but I saw the project grow from the beginning) is about tagging as many images as possible. It is not a "best of"-list it is a "does not suck"-list. And a lot of images on commons suck, just take a look at Special:NewFiles. Redundancy is irrelevant. QI tagging is a service to the end user. And I would guess we want to tag as many images as we can find (and the nominations help). Or do we have a problem with substandard nominations? --Dschwen (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
But the problem is that a lot of images don't get the QI-tag bcs they are not reviewed at all. And I think reason for this is partly that there are simply too many nominations. On the other hand there might be too few people that actually review. To be honest I also often have my difficulties reviewing an image. I am never really sure which qualities a QI should have. Your "doesn't suck"-rule might help here ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I don't want to force a technical solution on a social problem, but it would be fairly easy to have the bot keep track of the number of nominations and the number of reviews a person makes. We could enforce/encourage a quota, and have the bot nag people/remove their nominations(!?) when they fall dangerously below quota. It is clear that somebody has to to the work. What is not clear is whether the photographers/nominators must be those people. Playing devil's advocate you could say they already contributed by making the pictures, let someone else do the voting ;-). Well, I don't quite know what to do her, because I don't even know if we have a problem to begin with. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thing is, right now there are no rules just suggestions, thus it would be difficult to tell someone what they're doing is wrong when they have not broken any rules. --ianaré (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (BK) Hm. I don't know if it's good. Today I nominated 7 images because I made them at a weekend while nice weather during a new project. I uploaded all now and then I nomitated all. While a week I don't make photos. So I just nominating images sometimes, but then a lot. So your rules would be a hindrance to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry for my bad English...
  • I don't see an issue with this, as long as you don't come back every day and add 7 images. I work in batches too so I understand. What I would like to see is the type of behavior you described (large number of nominations in a single day, followed by several days of inactivity) allowed, while constantly putting 4 or more images every day not be allowed. --ianaré (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I do agree that flooding is quite annoying. The rule of 2 per day is easy to implement using a bot which could simply delist the excess images. But as Carschten pointed above if a user comes on a weekend and nominates 7 images on a single day it would unfair to that user. The rule proposed by Ianare has a better meaning but implementation might be more challenging! --JovianEye (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Or someone could write the flooder a friendly message, preferably with community backing. It is a bit ridiculous, that everyone is tiptoeing around, afraid to name names, and rather would generate an apparatus of rules than talk to the person(s). --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is caused by some series, mainly the pictures of Computer-Hotline with the ID-problem. I'm really sorry that nobody could help with the ID. Nearly every picture is really good and they would have been promoted very quickly, so the problem arises only because of the ID-problem. Other "flooders"
1. May 25, 2010: 7 pictures of kaʁstn concerning the project "SchachtZeichen" connected to "Kulturhauptstadt Europa 2010". The quality of the pictures is good and I like to review them, look for the best and discuss Carschtens approach to this event.
2. May 24, 2010: 8 pictures of me. I'm on holiday for one week. Others may judge. 4 pictures of Pudelek from Dresden, imo a bit dark but interesting enough.
3. May 23, 2010: 3 pictures of Kallerna, different subjects. Imo OK.
Perhaps we should try to get more reviewers, perhaps we should judge quicker. Imo the quality of QI-pictures is still getting better, many of us upgraded there equipment and are getting more experienced. The only risk of getting many good pictures is that we cannot judge them all. But I think QI is still motivating, I got many good hints and help, sometimes I could help others with a little technical support. Dschwen is right: The real problem are the loads of garbage coming in every day on our servers.
Perhaps we could find a solution by friendly mailing some sentences to users who post loads of pictures which are below QI-standards. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a (weekly) limit and send a friendly mail to those who exceeds this. Especially if someone nominates a lot of photographs where half or more of them have no chance to be promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Though I'm now an infrequent visitor, reviewer and nominator at QI what I've seen on the pass is where a lot of similar images nominated the reviewers tend to pick the best couple out and then decline the rest. If someone nominates a lot of images that are similar they take risk of having only the absolute best promoted, unlike FP there doesnt need to be a restriction because people do produce a high volume of QI images at once but there should be an expectation of people reviewing if they are nominating Gnangarra 10:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello everybody. First I would like to say that QI and QIC projects are very important to me, as maybe you can see. It's a good scale for me, as a newbie here and in photographic art. You may see too that I have only a poor camera, and with your photos I like, I look what are yours (cameras), and read a lot of camera catalogues and will buy another soon: you all are very helpful but you don't know how much ! With your critics of my work, and with your photos, I can see that I'm going better and better, in a good and friendly-enough spirit. Thanks for that. That's why I am very interested with this debate.


I think there is no a real problem with "flooding". One of us, sometimes, nominates in one day a lot and a lot of photos, on the same two subjects : fortress corridors in Territoire -de-Belfort, and insects. But they are good pics ! Then it's not "flooding", because there is no bad intention I'm sure. Some months ago, I send him a message, explaining him the different reasons I saw that it was not good to put so many photos on the same subject in one time. His very short answer was something like a polite "I don't care". And I think really that he don't care ! I agree with Alvesgaspar : it shows a lack of respect for reviewers, but it seems to me that it's quite impossible to do something against that. I propose simply a reviewing strike for a time: a non-answer can be an answer. A too strict limitation of nominating seems to be non relevant to me, because we have a lot of different situations. For example, I agree with Carschten : his pics of SchachtZeichen are absolutely not a flood in my opinion, and I understand his situation. And I think that 7 photos a week for each nominator is not the same than 1 photo per day... Maybe must we be more strict for promotions, that's another problem.--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel something strange here... To be frank I've been looking at QIC and participating to it since two months and the only three persons that I could say that are "flooding" the QIC, and I'm not saying that they are disturbing the process, are ComputerHotline, Kallerna and these last days Mattbuck. And in the end, most of their pictures are QI and they get reviewed. So, my question is the following: what are we trying to do here?

When I look at what is proposed under, I see rules that will apply to 1 to 5 users at best and that require a lot of our time to discuss. Maybe the problem is something else like the general quality of the pictures that go trough or the poor quality of the picture of a particular user that you are afraid to name(I don't think this is the case) but I think flooding is not really an issue. Maybe someone or a group of people could be chosen to look at the accepted/nominated ratio of users with the help of a bot and remind people that are under something like 2/3 with more than ten nominations that they should be more carefull in the choosing of their pictures. That way, we would make sure that people would only nominate their best quality pictures. In my opinion, nominating a thousand pictures that meet the QI standard is not really a problem and we should not give a hard time to the ones of us who are able to produce many good pictures at once. In short I would like to see the issue more discussed before we go on taking decisions that will apply to noone and if these decisions are taken, could we make a check after they are put up so we see if their usefull and they changed the situation? Just to be sure, I would like to say that personally I don't see too much problem with the way things are now and I identified people in this comment just to cite the cases that I thnik may raise a problem for others but I think these people are doing just fine and I have nothing against their practice.--Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've been trying to keep the number I submit down to say 4 per day, and since previous ones aren't reviewed yet I'm taking a few days off posting them. I don't submit photos which I think are substandard, and I've had I think 6 images officially declared QI by the bot in the past 3 days. If you think I'm flooding then I apologise, but I agree with Letartean here - if someone submits lots of images where the majority get promoted, and as long as other people get their photos reviewed as well, why is there a problem? I grant you I'm not the most active reviewer, but I try to review one image for every one I nominate, and if everyone does that then we have no issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there any kind of conclusion to this proposal? Because 28 pictures have just been dumped on the candidate page today. --Eusebius (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Options[edit]

Okay, looking at people's reaction there were a lot of good points brought up. I would like to mention that ComputerHotline's recent no-id flood was not the reason for starting this conversation, rather the ongoing debate concerning FP was the inspiration.

Anyway, here are some proposals for voting, I tried to condense the main points brought up :

option 0 - as is[edit]

Do nothing, everything is just fine.

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO there are more images being nominated that can be reasonably expected to be reviewed in the manner expected in the guidelines. There are also in some rarer cases floods of poor quality images. --ianaré (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --JovianEye (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Obviously things are not fine. QI reviews are not consistent, risking to render the whole process meaningless. --Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support see my comment in the discussion --Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per my comment above. People who flood the system with bad images should be told not to, but people submitting good images is not a bad thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it unfortunate, that the discussion of FPC, a project with a completely different goal is simply carbon copied to QI. Well, maybe people are in a voting/discussing mood this time of the year. Ditto mattbuck. --Dschwen (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 99of9 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You can ignore a flooding user. No need for extra rules. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

option 1 - limit daily nominations[edit]

Limit the number of nominations to X per day, where X can be decided later in the process if we reach consensus. Tentatively set X to 2 - 4.

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a realistic representation of how many people, including myself, create and nominate images. --ianaré (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --JovianEye (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ianare. Weekly is far better --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral limit the person or the day to (x)number of images that can be posted? Gnangarra 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ianare. --Cephas (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with George. Hello, George !--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I prefer this option because it is much easier to control than a weekly limit. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't want to bother people that take many good pictures.--Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

option 2 - limit nominations on a weekly basis[edit]

Limit the number of nominations to X per week, where X can be decided later in the process if we reach consensus. Tentatively set X to 10 - 12.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would allow most people to work as before, but heavy flooders would be restricted. --ianaré (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This option is probably the best (set 10-12 pictures) --Pudelek (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to be a good solution --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 per 7 days = 14, while 2 per day doesn't sound too much. kallerna 13:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Kallerna I think 10-12 per week is not enough. How about a combination of a limit per day and a limit per week like for example a maximum of 5 nominations per day and 15 per week. --Bgag (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment remember than 10-12 is just an example, we can decide on the exact number later. --ianaré (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer X per week than X per day. Exact number to be decided later.--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- I prefer the previous option because it is much easier to implement. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As in option 1 --Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As in option 1 --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

option 3 - require nominators to review[edit]

In order to nominate new images, users must also review an equal (?) number of images. Special consideration could be given to new users not familiar with the guidelines.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I already do this anyway ;-) --ianaré (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this option! Reviewing an image for every image nominated can be highly compulsive and reviews may not be natural ones! --JovianEye (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need careful reviews! --George Chernilevsky talk 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I nominate many images, but I don't think I have the qualifications to make reviews. --Bgag (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think it's a question of personal ethics. I try to do my best...Especially for "old blue framed" pics non evaluated yet.--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't nominate here a lot, but am considering doing a little more. However, my field of expertise is scanning, preparing, and restoring lithographs and engravings. I'm not a photography expert, and you don't want me reviewing outside of the carefully-selected works which are either so obviously successful or so obviously problematic that I'm able to judge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reasons that I gave to option 5.--Letartean (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 17:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

option 4 - ease review process[edit]

Basically lower standards to 'does not suck'. Would need to adjust guidelines accordingly.

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QIC has taught me a great deal about photography and I would hate to see it dumbed down. --ianaré (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --JovianEye (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose single reviewers, single promote/decline most just sail thru the process cant dumb it any more than that Gnangarra 10:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need to produce QUALITY IMAGES so the people who come and see the results of the process really find what is labelled. I hope we're not only doing this for ourselves... A label as to be trusted and accepted in the public. Lowering expectations won't do any good.--Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything I missed ? Please add any other options, thanks ! --ianaré (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the point. --Elekhh (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have COM:VIC to flag up the best images for various subjects, even if the best is only "doesn't suck". If it can't pass VI for being uniquely illustrative, and can't pass QI due to quality, it shouldn't pass anywhere. (QI is also only for Wikimedian-created works, but I suspect most things from elsewhere are best... I'll say "advertised", since "promoted" is ambiguous here - by said elsewheres. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uhm, I guess that is a quote by me, but I never wanted it to imply that we should lower standards. --Dschwen (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

option 5 - Set a weekly nomination limit; for additional nominations perform equal reviews[edit]

(Example - If the weekly limit is 10 and you wish to nominate 15, then you must review at least 5 images)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is like a combination of option 2 and 3, and will apply to few users who generally are very good photographers themselves! --JovianEye (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need careful reviews --George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even better than an equal number of reviews. --ianaré (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let us stay free...--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my statement above on Option 3: You don't want to force me to review outside of my comfort zone, since I'll mess things up horribly. That said, I doubt I'll be nominating that frequently, so if the weekly nomination limit is at least 3, feel free to disregard my oppose here. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Very strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think forcing people to review is wrong because not all of us have enough experience and will to give interesting reviews. First time I came here, I was starting to contribute and I was starting in photography (which I am still doing). So asking me to review images at that point would have been ridiculous. The end result of this kind of rule will be that people who nominate will pick any picture and say something like "QI --Letartean (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)" and many pictures that wouldn't get trough now will in the future if this is enforced. Then many will have to go to CR, which is not the point of QIC. If we do this, it will look like FP and each image will have to be reviewed and voted for by many people. I think the way QI works now is good: if one person says your picture is good enough and nobody says the contrary then it is accepted. We shouldn't change that. When I contribute to this project, I want to ask people if my pictures "do-not-suck" and further more if my pictures are interesting for people that don't have to say their good because the're close too me (like family and friends). I don't feel like I can give anybody advice on how to take better pictures yet. Looking at it daily, I'm getting to understand QI standard and I will probably be soon able too review more often but if you force me too review for every pic I post or something close to that, I really won't be happy. I think in the end we have to publicise (I don't know if this is an acceptable word...) the project in commons and in our respective Wikipedia project to get more people to review and we have to make sure that QI are images that are of really good quality so they will be useful to others.--Letartean (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAgree very much with this.--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

option 6 stale nominations[edit]

Looking at the current page there are nomination dating from 9 May to 26 May thats too far back. Propose the all nominations are closed by a bot after day four(ie 21 May) as declined, presumption is if no one thought it good enough to review in the first 4 days then it probably isn't QI. This would reduce the page size, and reviewers would concentrate on promoting. If a photo needs an edit then send it to CR. Gnangarra 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very good and the best idea! Perhaps at the first for 5 days. After this period the image isn't QI. It's simple and fast. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many pictures are really improved during the review. 4 days are not enough. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
if an image can be improved by editing send it CR Gnangarra 14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Theres 28 unreviewed from before 21st, plus a further 10 with cmment but no decision of which only 3 have had any comment in the last 5 days. How much longer do they sit there 7, 10,14 days currently the page is out to 17 days/ QI started with a 48 hour review time, CR they got an extra 7 days. Gnangarra 14:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Mbdortmund. kallerna 14:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mbdortmund. Also, sometimes I will look at an image, be undecided, then go back a few days later and decide to nominate or decline. --ianaré (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It does not resolve the main problem of too many nominations. --Bgag (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Default decline might have the advantage of puting some pressure on nominators and make them select more carefully, however the 4 days is too short. Proposal should be in line with the other options and say X days, so we can decide on the principle first.--Elekhh (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Elekhh. Let's decide for the principle first. Then: For five days, maybe a week, including a week-end ? But no more.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see that pics in CR are more seriously reviewed than others. Do you agree ? Then, I think that every comment-only or question must automatically send the pic in CR. If the picture suggests a comment or a question, it means that this image is not going to "self-death" by time... And I think CR is very interesting (because of the suspense too...--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as written. Symbol support vote.svg Support if active discussion is enough to keep things open - some of them seem to be undergoing active fixes and improvement - and if the time to closure is increased somewhat. Anyway, it's hardly an issue: there's nothing stopping anyone from going through and opposing all noms after a few days, giving "stale" as the reason. Though that may not be very nice... Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

option 7 - Daily limit of X nominations and weekly limit of Y nominations[edit]

(Combination of option 1 and option 2; X and Y can be decided upon further consensus)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bgag (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I find it a bit too complicated, rule should be as simple as possible. And there is some advantage of having the Z similar images near each other rather than spread.--Elekhh (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Second time this night I agree with Elekhh....--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

miscellaneous other suggestions[edit]

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could it be possible to imagine or to create some 'quality sets' of several pics of the same subject ? For example, I think that the recent Carschten's pictures SchachtZeichen (all technically good IMO) could be a nice 'quality set'. Some nice buildings of Trier too, or peacock pictures or... fortress corridors ! It already exists in the Valued Images project, and it is very interesting to compose a 'seria'...--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not a bad idea --ianaré (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disagree. We should keep editorial decisions out of QI and concentrate on simple technical aspects. do not make QI more complicated than necessary. That would be counterproductive with respect to getting more reviewers. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Does everybody really think that the promoting rules are hard enough ? Today, the difference needed to be promoted is +1. What about +2 ? (if only a +1 difference after a week, then sent to CR). Well, only an idea...--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the current system of review is fine, this would make the process too long. --ianaré (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose System is fine. KISS. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could we elect someone we trust or a group of people to look at the QI/Nominations ratio of users and remind people that are under a certain fixed limit to be careful in choosing their pictures? This would meet and enforce the "frowned uppon" criteria that is alredy there and let people who nominate many good pictures that get labelled continue doing there job?--Letartean (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I think that "red frame" has no more sense now. I see that some nominators, disagreing with "decline" opinions, put their own pics in CR. It looks to be new to me. I asked about that, and some of you answered that it is normal. I disagree. Every time one of my pic will became a "red frame", I'll change it in yellow and put it in CR ? But everybody disagree with a decline vote on his image! If one vote is enough to be a QI hic et nunc, here and now, I think that one vote is enough to be declined hic et nunc, here and now. If not, decline votes will not have exactly the same value than support votes, even if, at the end, CR excludes the nominator. IMO, nominating a picture is already a support vote. If I disagree strongly with the "red frame" around my pic, or if I remove the issue he noticed,I try to convince the reviewer, even on his personnal talk page. Some of you do this with me. But I'll never remove your choice by changing the red frame in a yellow one. My proposition: Consensual review is reserved for 1 support vs 1 oppose reviews, excluding the nominator. Thank you for reading this.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I completely agree with Jebulon. Bgag (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting results, next steps[edit]

Looking over the votes, there are two options that have the strongest consensus :

  • Option 0, as is has 6 against, 1 for.
  • Option 2, limit nominations on a weekly basis has 9 for, 1 against.

The others do not have an overwhelming majority one way or the other, or have too few votes. While we should wait a little longer before coming to conclusions, we can start on the nest step, figuring out how many per week we want the limit to be. --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Option 0 is now 6-4 against.... Maybe voting like this is a bit premature... We should promote this discussion on the project page somewhere it will be seen so we have a better view... --Letartean (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of nominations per week[edit]

Option 1 : 10[edit]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too low for productive (or unemployed ;-) contributors --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too low. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 2 : 12[edit]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too low. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 3 : 14[edit]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I still think that we should also have a day limit. 14 in one day could be disturbing. --Bgag (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Bgag. kallerna 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- If a daily limit of 2 is imposed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, but no daily limit.--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too low. There is no issue as long as people review as they propose. More generally weekly limits do not conform to KISS. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 4 : 16[edit]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral not sure about this one ... --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too low. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 5 : 18[edit]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many for my taste. --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 6 : 20[edit]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose what's the point ?--ianaré (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I propose a weekly limit of 7 times the daily limit. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of nominations per day[edit]

Seems there is a demand for this as well ...

Option 1 : same as weekly total[edit]
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For now. Could be annoying, but could be useful. hmmm...--ianaré (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - If we have a weekly total of minimum 10, then that's too many for a single day really. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 2 : half of weekly total[edit]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bgag (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I oppose any weekly total. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 3 : 4[edit]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - 4 isn't unreasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Option 4 : 2[edit]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too few --ianaré (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Bgag (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - too small. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical artwork[edit]

As it stands, it appears that if I scan and prepare a historical artwork, I'm covered under "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible", provided I scan and prepare it to high standards.

We probably should decide what we should do about the somewhat more common situation (outside of my own work) where the original scan is taken from a public archive. The major issues appear to be:

1. It is very hard to get a good photograph of a painting, etc, so they ought to be eligible. 2. Scans have their own issues. Even with the best-quality originals I've worked with, it's still taken at least two hours to go through and prepare the scan to sufficient quality, since scanners are highly prone to dust, and almost never come out with appropriate colours. These need removed. I'd suggest (though I would, wouldn't I?) that we continue to allow them. 3. The trouble with allowing editing to be sufficient to allow QI is that it may set us up for fairly trivial work on an image from elsewhere allowing it to be featured.

Below, I've set up all the variants I could think of that we could do, including some ones I'd rather hope you do not support. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the rather lengthy subject headers. The situation is complicated enough that it seems worth being specific, but the layout's kind of horrible. Tweak at will. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion up a level, seems like a different enough topic from the flooding discussion. --ianaré (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Option 1: Ban all historic 2-dimensional artworks from QI.[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not created by a Wikimedian. kallerna 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I'm with Kallerna on this one because we have no accurate way of assessing a restoring job. Trusting the restorer (because he used some X or Y method) is equivalent, in most cases, to automatically promote all images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment maybe only unmodified historical artwork should be banned then. And a restoration should link to the original document so the work can be properly assessed. --ianaré (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Then, we will be assessing the quality of the restoring job, which is not the purpose of QIC. I really believe that a specialized forum could be created for reviewing this kind of work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not opposed to a separate forum, but I think it would be pretty stale on its own. I don't see why QI can't be used to review a restoration process. If the purpose of QI is to encourage users to contribute their own work to commons then that would be perfectly in line with that. Restoration is certainly real and valuable work, just as there are professional photographers there are professional restoration services. They're not cheap. --ianaré (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • From what I understood of Adam's explanations, a good restoring job is not trivial and depends on a number of specialized techniques. Also, it is not in the reach of a common reviewer to accurately assess such job (again, according to Adam's explanations). So, even if the original picture is put side by side with the restored one (which would force to modify the QIC environment), what guarantee do we have that the assessments are adequate when someone writes 'Promotion: QI for me' or 'Decline: does not respect the original'? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Option 2: "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible" We modify this to exclude scanning.[edit]

Option 3: "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible." Scans are included in this. However, edits of reproduction work begun by someone else are forbidden. [Current situation?][edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bgag (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- And how to assess the quality of the restoring job? Will we have to make a technical course on the subject? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Same way we assess the quality of unusual photography, species identification, and the rest of it, I'd imagine. Either it'll be left to someone who feels capable, questions will be raised, or it'll go stale. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't care who started the work. If a wikimedian has put effort into it, I'm willing to give recognition for their effort, and if it's up to quality standards, lets mark it as a quality image. --99of9 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 4: Photographic reproductions and scans made by Wikimedians are fine. Restorations begun by someone else must link to the original image that the Wikimedian started from, and should only be promoted if the edits are substantial.[edit]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Could well be impractical. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suppose this is my favourite. Any serious effort can be recognized if the result is good enough. --99of9 (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Option 5: Photographic reproductions and scans made by Wikimedians are fine. Any image edited by a Wikipedian, no matter its original source, is also fine.[edit]

Option 6: any work which has {{own}}[edit]

The purpose of QI is to recognise the work of Commons photographers in addressing the needs of WM-projects for high quality encyclopaedic type images, by extension this should exclude images that require bots to verify the license off other sites.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 15:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was under the impression you weren't supposed to use {{own}} for reproductions of 2-dimensional works. Could you clarify a little what you mean to include here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Your not, only works created by Wikimedians can have the template {{own}} on them Gnangarra 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
So, basically option 1? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really, but kind of. My preference is to define the scope of QI rather than to ban specific situations the simpler the definition the clearer the interpretation across languages and the easier for new comers to follow and understand. Gnangarra 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds and media[edit]

Okay, this is a little off-topic, but: What does everyone think of adding a section at the bottom of each day for sounds and media? It'd be good to have a basic review process for them, particularly for use in the newly renovated Media of the Day, but, while I think we'd be best using a similar process, this may well not be the best place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, why not? We'd have to think a minute how to integrate this in the page (as sounds and videos wont work with gallery tags (or will they?). It makes sense to consolidate everything into a Quality media project (but not so fast with the page renaming please ;-) ). A separate sounds and video project would probably not get a lot of attention (take featured sound candidates on en.wp as an example). On the other hand a few sections up, people are complaining about a lack of review power on the page... --Dschwen (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
They work in galleries, albeit not very well. See below: Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot notification[edit]

Why does QICbot's talk page promotion notification include the complete QI text, eg {{QICpromoted|File:Ham Green Lake 5.jpg|Ham Green Lake near Bristol. [[User:Mattbuck|Mattbuck]] 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)|Definetely a QI to me. [[User:ABF|ABF]] 11:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)}}, when the template just shows the image and says it's promoted (below)? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pill MMB 16 Ham Green Lake.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pill MMB 16 Ham Green Lake.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

I don't know if it's a later addition, but I see a droplist for the comments there. Pitke (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Is it allowed to review older proposed quality images as well? For example today is June 19th, so can I also review images of june 18th (except the discussions in the end)? --A.Ceta (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- You can review any image in the page (and in Consenesual review as well) as long as the final decision is not taken. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pornography is now a reason to oppose a picture?[edit]

Since when has the actual content (specifically sexual) of an image been a reason to deny it? This is QUALITY image, we care about QUALITY not content. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 -- Felix König 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 --Dschwen (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 -- Niabot (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 (I suppose you could make a subject-matter argument on a _featured_ image, but Quality??) --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- How to we assess the quality of an original artwork? Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely sure on that - whether it's a good drawing I guess - but I am fairly certain that what is being depicted should not be relevant to a forum which concerns itself with artistic merit. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since we are assessing 'artistic merit' (which is certainly not the purpose of QIC, btw) then reasons like 'I don't like it', 'it is ugly', 'disgusting' or 'dreadful taste' are legitimate. Rigth? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You know what I meant - I meant how good an image was. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd point out a few things here: Not all types of artwork should be hosted on Commons due to scope, we should only have pieces of art that are significant in their own right or images that depict a subject of relevance to WM projects (or more broadly education). As QI is about Wikimedian-created content only it should be obvious that the second is what matters here. The image at the core of this one is an illustration of hentai, so we should be judging if its a quality illustration of that subject.

The problem with assessing it at present is that the QI criteria are designed for photographs. Photos are just one class of artwork, and different genres have different measures of "quality". My oppose is based on those criteria and the ones I do feel are relevant - basically a complaint about disturbing geometry and more important composition.

In terms of anime, I'd suggest for a start that the same compositional rules should apply to those that guide portrait photographs. For example, are there elements in the image that detract from the subject? Is the subject of the image cropped at an inappropriate location ("don't crop at a joint")? If a photo would fail for those things, so should an anime image - as both would be improved by not having that flaw. Applying that to the image - what purpose do the headphones serve? Why is the man's head just visible? Why is the tip of her knee cropped?

The comment about the odd DOF effect in my oppose is something I wouldn't oppose over by itself. I don't like the effect, but it may be a perfectly normal thing for this type of art - not being an anime fan I wouldn't know.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I share Nilfanion's concerns and go a bit further. QIC was created to deal with photographs and technical illustrations, not artwork. And it is obvious that those images being discussed now are original pieces of artwork of a certain Japanese style. The question is, should we modify the scope of QIC as to incorporate original artwork made by Wikimedians or not? This is not a trivial issue and will have to be discussed by the community, as the criteria for evaluating the new media will be totally subjective. Reasons for opposing like I don't like it or Disgusting will become legitimate. (I hardly can wait to nominate this pencil drawing) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Well that one is easy enough to exclude from this. The image is actually outside Commons scope as not realistically useful for an educational purpose, but is allowed under the long-standing exemption for a limited number of personal images for user (and project) space purposes. (Of course if you became "notable" that would change!) And I can't see how QIC is ever going to be an appropriate forum to debate the quality of notable artworks (but it could judge the quality of the copy hosted here - such as a photo of a sculpture)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Please relax, it is not my intention to nominate all my masterpieces ;-). But the example is useful as it is quite easy to demonstrate its educational value e.g. as an illustration of the pencil technique (quite different from the coal's technique). But why should the nominations be limited to 'notable' artworks? And how should we assess that status? I suspect we are opening some kind of Pandora's box... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
To me, those images are not "original pieces of artwork of a certain Japanese style". The author doesn't seem to be a Japonese profesionnal published mangaka. So this drawing can't be considered as a pure and genuine example of the genre. --Myrabella (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely - who here is a professional, published photographer? Noone? Well our work can't be considered a pure and genuine example of the genre. Hyberbole sure, but I don't consider being professional or being published to be requirements here. However if this is "real" anime or faux-anime does matter much more for VI: Getting a free release of "real" anime would produce a more valuable image than mere "imitiation". As for QI, if it is a high technical standard, and is in the style of the genre I think its probably ok. Or should we be judging hentai by the masturbatory experience given by it - is that the appropriate criteria for this, and how can that be anything but subjective? (And Alves I meant that only notable artworks should considered as a work of art itself, other images can only be judged by how well they depict their subject - distinction of course).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed: it's more important for VI than for QI. --Myrabella (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
@Nifanion: The man's head is usually/often not visible, like the protagonist inside an eroge isn't visible. Both use this intentionally to give the reader/player the possibility to identify with the male "subject". Thats why the male, if needed, is usually cropped. The perspective is isometric and valid for drawings, but impossible for an real camera. Thats freedom an artist has. (for reading Isometric projection, superflat) Also the DOF is always artificial, there is no correct way to create DOF in a drawing. If you don't like it, i can make an other version without DOF in some minutes. Regarding to the knee i have to say, that this isn't the illustration/photo of an animal. So there is no disadvantage for the subject, or would you say that an portrait is an bad crop. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
With respect to points, sure I can see the whole "hide the face" thing: But why include part of his chin? The isometric projection used here just looks unnatural, there should be perspective effects due to the angle visible on the balcony if its trying to be "realistic" as it is its just disturbing. Of course the DOF is artifical, but it doesn't look real - as the border lines appear sharper than the objects. And with respect to the knee - surely including the knee (and a small margin) improve the image as opposed to the real subject - the girl - not being wholly in the frame? I can't see any justification for excluding it. Add all that up (plus the other things) and you get the oppose...--Nilfanion (talk)
(Um - this should really be in the discussion on QIC itself not here...)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic content in FPC: poll[edit]

A poll is running in FPC talk page about pornographic and explicit sexual content (here). Please participate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Leading image in QI gallery[edit]

This image has been leading the QI gallery for eons. I suggest replacing it with a random QI. Anybody knows how to do it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Time out" on consensual reviews[edit]

I see a comment which implies there is a time out of 48 hours on consensual reviews. That is not correct - see here where it clearly states 8 days is the time out. Having said that there are now a number of images that have gone over the 8 days as far as I can see. I guess this needs some input/thoughts? --Herby talk thyme 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

One point would be whether the image has been changed/"improved" in that time I guess? --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
One of us didn't read the whole thing ;-). Here it is: The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines. Using "support" or "oppose" will make it easier to count your vote. Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted. In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - once in consensual review the time is 8 days, nothing about 48 hours which is a minimum anyway not a maximum. --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Are we reading the same text? The citation above is taken from the CR rules! The period of 48 hours is indeed a minimum ... because the maxium is 8 days (only applicable in case of draw). If a majority is reached, it makes no sense to maintain the nomination open after the 48 hours' period because the outcome will be left to the random and arbitrary decision of any casual closer! Fortunately we don't have in Commons the tradition of loose evaluations periods, which were in force in the English Wikipedia FPC until very recently. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
There is also an issue of whether something is "closed" or not. Until it is it is "open" in my opinion unless (as with some area of projects) there is a closing time. Even that does not really apply all the time - areas such as RfAs have a closing time but votes are made until they are actually closed.
Rather more important in my view is the four or so images that are past the 8 days which really should be dealt with. --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Again and again, we are coming to the same problems. Above, you will find another discussion initiated by me, exactly on this subject, in which a specific proposal was made. Nothing was done, though the proposal was quite easy to implement using a bot approach. Now, the only thing we have to do is to respect the written rules and re-assess the outcome of all images still sitting in CR. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If you are going to do that there must be an ending time on such things. I personally do not spend my time checking my watch/calendar and I doubt others do. I re-interate though - if something is not actually closed then it is still open. Until that is changed you will get issues - take any approach you like to folk who don't look at their watches - you will still get it. All you are likely to do is piss folk off. --Herby talk thyme 08:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I always thought, that the bot closes the voting. Is that wrong? --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I thought that but I think the bot needs help with the consensual review ones. They need to be changed back to "nomination" for the bot to pick up the time aspect. This is really the issue. Despite anything said here if something "looks" open then folk will express opinions not look at their watches.
It is either open until it gets closed (humanly or by bot) or it is done by a strict time basis with either a closing time or template that greys out (say) the nom on a time basis (no expert on templates but I think that is possible).
This is something that needs community input not folk going on about an imperfect system. --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

8-day rule unclear[edit]

Today, Herbythyme marked a lot of "Consensual Review" entries with the text:

On the basis of the rules stating than images are only here for 8 days, this should have been closed here and additional votes not counted. Count amended

I do not endorse nor contest this action; rather, I find the rules ambiguous, which state:

In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.

As Herbythyme's move implies, the "maximum period of 8 days" would mean that any votes after the period are discounted. However, the rules do not explicitly say that when an entry fails to be closed promptly, the 8-day rule is to be applied retroactively. Opinions? -- King of Hearts (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the meaning of the word "entry" is ambiguous: should the 8 days be counted from nomination or from the moment of transfer to consensual review? As this example shows, if the 8 days are counted from nomination, and 8 days have passed between nomination and the trasfer to consensual review, than no time for consensual review is left. --Elekhh (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bot close the consensual reviews after eight days? --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • No such bot is in place as far I know. --Elekhh (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually raised this above - here. I didn't close them, I just pointed out that, according to the rules, they should have been closed. Despite opinions above I see this as a grey area and one that needs input from people. --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I closed them. 48hrs is the minimum after which the image can be closed if it doesn't have equal opposes and supports. This is the discretion of the closer: not a must but a can do. After 8 days in QIC, the nomination has to be closed (maximum stay). This is a must, not a can do. There is (currently) no way to detect when a nomination has entered into CR (unless you start looking at old diffs which is not at all practical and near impossible for some of us). Maybe the wording should be changed slightly, but this is rather unambiguous. Lycaon (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
So should we add this wording to make it clear? "Any votes or comments added after 8 days will be disregarded." -- King of Hearts (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO all it needs is to say 8 days from nomination (not entry). However also a solution is needed for the absurd situation when 8 days have passed between nomination and the trasfer to consensual review, and therefore no time for consensual review is left. --Elekhh (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually think 8 days in total is just fine. If we cannot reach a conclusion in that time then timing it out is fine/appropriate with me. My only issue is when the image is amended/updated in that time? --Herby talk thyme 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case it might as well be withdrawn and the amended/new one resubmitted. Lycaon (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes - that works for me - it gets the full 8 days (potentially) then. I tended to amend any image as soon as I could but that allows the option for people who are not here on a daily basis. --Herby talk thyme 07:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

QICBot is running[edit]

QICbot is not running. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be running. Did it miss something? --Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Happily watching the candidates list[edit]

Hi everyone! When whatching the candidates list today I got that good feeling that the level of contributions is quite high today. When we started this a few years ago only very few people were able do do a correct perspective correction. Nowadays most candidates are corrected. And we have a increasing number of contributors with a high quality level such as Airwolf, Nevit, Mbdortmund, Jebulon just to name a few. Keep on going! --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for mentioning my name. You was also the one who promoted my first QI November 19th, 2006. I was a new member and as the QI project aims, I was motivated by this project. I hope project continues to contribute to overall quality of commons and wikipedia in general and motivate more users to contribute with better photos. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There have been quite a lot recently. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
They're also reviewed in a quicker pace than in the summer. Pitke (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Automatic marking of QI images on category pages?[edit]

Did anyone ever think about modifying the Wiki software in a way that QI images are marked on normal category pages, e.g. by showing a miniature version of the green QI seal with the thumbnail? If one looks for a good picture in crowded categories it is sometimes very cumbersome to click on a lot of thumbnails only to see that at higher resolution a picture looks unsharp, noisy, overexposed, washed-out, tilted etc. The image categories on the QI pages are somewhat rudimentary compared with the regular category tree. It would help to find a good picture on a certain subject more quickly, if the Wiki software could evaluate the QI tag automatically on normal category pages. What do you think? --JRff (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I had proposed to rework the QI categories based on the example of the VI categories, which are much better, IMO. I didn't get any answer, and I was reverted in my attempt to do it myself. Yann (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think is a very good idea and if technically possible it should be done, together with VIs and FPs. In the meanwhile the best one can do is to manually add QI, VI and FP images to the Galleries related to large categories and mark them there, as in this example. As more and more images are uploaded categories are becomming less suitable to find good images, but galleries can help. --Elekhh (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

linking to FPC[edit]

When I went thruough the candidates list today I've seen an image that imo could easily pass as a FP. Thus I nominated it and added a short note to the review here see FPC-nom. This got reverted because a user called it advertising. I don't see why it could be bad to link to such a nomination. Every user that states his opinion either in a QI review or in a FP candidature makes the decision more democratic. Thus I actively encourage people who know a picture is nominated at two places (QI, VI, FP) to link those nominations. Btw: the revert got reverted again. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how a link to a FPC of the same image helps with assessing or improving the quality of this image and there's limited space. If crosslinking between parallel candidatures is thought to be always beneficial – fine with me and please excuse the revert. --Quartl (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Display issue[edit]

Hello,

There is a problem for displaying the template with a = within. See section "File:Busena Resort05bs3200.jpg". [1] Yann (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

✓ fixed. It has to do with passing parameters to a template. Lycaon (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Can somebody tell me, we at my candidate-pictures File:Hunspach_399.jpg and File:Hunspach_392.jpg the signature is not working? --Lutz Fischer-Lamprecht (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think now I know it. Is it because of this:
Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#Nominations?
--Lutz Fischer-Lamprecht (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

QIC interface & Google Chrome[edit]

What happened to the comments in the nominations? My broser is Google Chrome and I'm longer able to see them. All I see is a coloured stripe below each picture. With MS Explorer it works fine. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar problem with Safari and Camino. The comments are to the side and the blue boxes are empty. 24.18.247.90 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Same issue with Mozilla Firefox. --Elekhh (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Same problem with Opera. --Avenue (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason <table> did not agree with the <gallery> tag all of a sudden. I have converted the templates to <div> and should work for everyone now. ZooFari 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Photos taken not by Commons users[edit]

„All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.“
That's the first sentences of the Guidelines, but what does it mean? It would be nice if the image is taken by a Commons user, but rather indifferent. Or does it mean that all picture have to take by us? The wording is currently inconclusive. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- It means that all images submitted to QIC must have been taken by someone with a Commons account. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, this policy/rule is useless. Just because someone other than me took the quality shot, and I uploaded it (with appropriate licence/permission), doesn't mean that its is of bad quality. The source doesn't really matter for an image to be listed as "Quality Image"; the quality of the image is all that matters. Rehman 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Useless" is a strong word. Your caveat "with appropriate licence/permission" glosses over a lot of technicalities that this rule helps to minimise. --Avenue (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I've always wondered about this rule. What are those technicalities that this rule helps minimize? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just wondering. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I was meaning all the copyright and licensing issues that determine whether an image can be hosted here on Commons. Under the current rules, there are occasionally freedom of panorama issues with QI candidates, but that's about all. If we open up QIC to all images, I can imagine us having a much wider range of such issues to deal with. Maybe that's fine with everyone here, but I think it should be considered. --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I see licensing issues as something unrelated to QIC. All images on Commons should comply with our licensing policies, irrespective of QIC. --Slaunger (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the original motivation for the rule was to encourage new users to produce and upload own creations, simply to get some good material uploaded here, and also help users improve on the quality of the contributions by learning from the feedback. I am not sure if this is still as valid an argument as it once was. --Slaunger (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Can we change it? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I thing we should change it too. Rehman 15:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; QI should remain a showcase for the best images created by Commons users. Powers (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Why? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the rule is much depending on, what the objective is with QIC? If it is to make browsable galleries of high quality content for repository users it seems to make sense to open the gates for nomination of all images on Commons irrespective of the creator. If it is for our own learning and retainment of contributors it is probably best to keep it as is. Actually, removing the rule will probably only have marginal practical difference I think, as the vast majority of the nominations at QIC are self-nominations of own creations. --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the first objective encompasses the second one, aren't we hitting two birds with one stone by removing the requirement? I also agree that the practical effect will be minor, which leads me to think it's a good idea. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nothing against opening up QI however I don't think that concerns of flooding can be simply dismissed. I would suggest, if agreed, implementing this change in conjunction with the one discussed previously but not yet implemented. --Elekhh (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • QI is about recognising Commons photographers and the work they do to make Commons a unique repository, many of our photographers take technically great photos of subjects that are as interesting as a watching paint dry. If I upload the work of someone else that I saw on a free license site(Flickr, US Govt, Museum, Library etc) my 10 minutes of download/uploading is nothing special when compared to the photographer who went out to take the photograph, if I find something that is some way special I can nominate it at FP or VI. I strongly oppose any changes to QI that devalues the contributions of our photographers because when QI was created it was to promote and encourage our photographers not as yet another forumn to advertise FLICKR, Library of Congress, NASA, US Navy and if you know someone that is taking great photos and you want them to recognise by QI then encourage them to become part of the Commons Community becaue we always need more photographers contributing quality works. As someone whos spent a great deal of time promoting Commons as a source repository to GLAMs the QI galleries are a very effective forumn to showcase our best contributions without bombarding the viewer with other peoples works. Gnangarra 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Completely agree with the above and strongly oppose changing the rule. --Dschwen (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Making voting easier - QIhelper.js sneak preview[edit]

Hi all, after a little absence at QIC I revisited the project and immediatedy was reminded of one of my pet peeves. Voting on QIC is too cumbersome. The source code of the page looks confusing, and I personally have trouble matching up the correct lines with the thumbnails of the nominations on the page. It is a back and forth for me. Looking at images, remembering the name, going into edit mode, finding the image, changing the remplate. Nope, too much work.

This is where MediaWiki:QIhelper.js comes into play. It enhances the edit mode on the QIC page, showing a thumbnail of the image that your cursor is currently on. It also adds a quick full size view of the image to study details like sharpness (Examine), and two links to Promote or Decline the nomination your cursor is currently on.

try it here

Consensual review is not supported (every section contains only one image anyways), and YMMV. No Internet Explorer support yet, Firefox and Chrome works (IE has retarded cursor position getting). Let me know what you guys think. --Dschwen (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! I also think that editing QIC is a pain. This would help. Yann (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
My tests worked very well. Personally, I think this is a really cool tool. Rehman 01:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
"Abbrechen" scheint nicht zu funktionieren. Das Script setzt trotzdem den Status auf Decline und hängt als Begründung "null" an. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. I used a quick hack, not looking at the return value of the prompt. Should work now. --Dschwen (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tested and works in Internet Explorer 8. Please help me with further testing. I'll put this into the dedicated Javascript page for QIC (which already exists to fix the signature problem). That should be ok, as the script is minimally intrusive, as long as people do not actively activate the helper by clicking on the red bar (I also might add a cookie to remember the activation state). --Dschwen (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added it for every user now. --Dschwen (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC) P.S.: next step: making nominating easier!


Update. The script now checks the size of the images and reports it. It warns if an image has less than 2 Megapixels. Fetching the size involves a call to the toolserver, where a database request is issued and the result is reported back. This allows me to extend the functionality in the future to perform automated histogram and sharpness analysis to give an impartial recommendation to the reviewer. --Dschwen (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)