Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive/2012-01

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

proposition pics[edit]

Hello, Ive worked for the french horse portal and I've seen some good pics, but my english is not enough good for make a proposition. Here are the pics if you want to propose it ? I'll vote. Thanks --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of those are overexposed but I'll propose the rest. Pitke (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and QI candidates need to be by Wikimedia contributors. Pitke (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensual reviews[edit]

I'm afraid the consensual reviews are very loooooong. Could somebody refresh by promoting or decline (I don' know how to do it by myself) ? And if there is no consensus more than one month after nomination, then it is obvious that the picture is not a QI, and let's put it in the "undecided category". It is now ridiculous, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

To close, simply update the sum at QICtotal, remove the previous signature and replace it with yours, and change "discuss" to "promotion" or "decline". ELEKHHT 05:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, That's what I've done for the oldest noms.--Jebulon (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How long must these Consensual reviews remain open for discussioneing? --A.Ceta (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

On the organization of highlighted (FP/QI/VI) media in Commons main category structure[edit]

I have started a discussion regarding some thoughts about getting a better integration and display of FP/QI/VIs in the main category structure at Commons:Village pump#Highlighted content in main category structure. Feel free to join the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Monitor calibration[edit]

I was just wondering. How many of the regular judges use monitors that are up to the job and are calibrated properly using a hardware calibration tool? And what sort of monitors are being used? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Downsampling as a criterion for quality image status[edit]

(copied from the Village Pump Archive)

Should downsampled image files be automatically disqualified for quality image status? Currently a specific file is discussed (see here), however a uniform decision of policy should be made. Gidip (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Doing so you would only punish those who do not hide it. I do it for my photos, too to speed-up upload while not having a big loss (most sensors produce a lot of pixels but no additional information). -- RE rillke questions? 14:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that for better or worse quality image status is given to images which look good at the full original resolution. Down-sampling is a process which would lover the quality of "quality image", however is fully justified in case of images which look blurry at full resolution, since for those additional resolution is wasted. The bottom line is that no matter how valuable an image might be, it does not qualify for quality image status if it is down-sampled or blurry at full resolution. For example I consider this image as one of my best shots, but I do not think it would quality as "quality image" because it was taken with very cheap camera and is blurry at full resolution. --Jarekt (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify things, please notice that currently Commons and Wikipedia have contrasting attitudes towards downsampling, although in most other respects the concept of a good image file is very similar between the two projects. See the following citations from Commons and Wikipedia, respectively:

Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. 1 (see also the talk page for previous discussions on the matter)

If, when viewed at 100% (actual pixels), an image appears slightly blurred and/or there are visible JPEG compression artifacts, it could benefit from downsampling. Images from modern digital cameras which produce very large (6MP or 10MP) files can look much better when slightly reduced in size. 2

To elaborate, the question can be split in two:

  1. Should images always be evaluated in full resolution or should they be evaluated in a reasonably detailed view, which may be in lower-than-full resolution?
  2. Should downsampling be totally discouraged, or should it be encouraged when the 100% view is improved?

Gidip (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The obvious answer to me is 1. Downsampling never improves the 100% view. It baffles me why some people don't get that. --Dschwen (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsampling, for me, does not become a criterion for quality image status because, sometimes, it's necessary to downsample an image. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sometimes downsampling is necessary because the 100% view is very unattractive. This is especially true with macro shots using poor-quality equipment. While full resolution is generally preferable, downsampling should not be a reason in itself for opposition of a QI candidate unless the resolution is too low. --Claritas (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A clarification on my above statement. Downsampling never improves the image, but in cases of seriously blurred images, like for example this one it does not matter if image is stored at full resolution of 1,728 × 2,304 pixels or if someone down-samples it to smaller resolution. The image is of such low quality that noting is lost. This can be tested by down-sampling followed by up-sampling and the resulting image should be hard to distinguish from the original. That said I agree with commons guideline of not downsampling images, since it is less confusing. All that discussion is not very relevant to quality image status, since it will not be granted to either blurry or downsampled images. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course the example you've given is an obviously bad photo - because it's blurred in any resolution you choose. But let me give you 3 other examples, which are much more ambivalent:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Narcissus_tazetta_1.jpg (in this one, check the history for the full resolution)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colchicum_hierosolymitanum_3.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colchicum_hierosolymitanum_1.jpg
These photos are pretty good in moderate resolution (still much above 2mpx), but blurred to varied extent in full resolution. Should they be disqualified from QI status, even though they look pretty good in a sufficiently detailed view? Gidip (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I started a similar discussion in Wikipedia. Gidip (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I never disqualified automatically a picture only because of downsampling, not for quality image status not even not for featured picture status. There is no need for a rule dictating how a user has to sample his pictures or not. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMPORTANT ! Please notice that almost the same discussion recently took place here regarding the FPC rules. I have nothing to add, that discussion was really complete in my opinion. So I strongly oppose to any project about this question. We have a (good) rule regarding the size of pictures, that's enough. I don't know if a picture "should" not be downsampled, but downsampling must not be an anti-criterion for QI. Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Technically, who can prove (and how) if a picture is downsampled or not ? Why prohibit downsampling and not prohibit other manipulations (crops, perspective corrections, re-framing, balances of colors, increasing contrasts, removing dust spots etc etc) ? Every digital manipulation reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. Unless the rules oblige to upload only pure RAW files just out from cameras, the discussion is irrelevant. --Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • @Gidip: What is "Wikipedia" ? You surely mean English Wikipedia. Please don't forget that some (a lot !) of us are working in our own language wikipedias... I think a discussion about images is really more relevant here in "Commons", which is an international Wikimedia project...--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I fully agree. I started a discussion on en: Wikipedia becuase this is the largest Wikipedia project with the largest number of users, and they already had a guideline that contradicted ours. So I thought it might be good to rediscuss the issue in both projects, since currently one contradicted the other. Perhaps the guidelines should be rephrased more clearly in both projects. Gidip (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you sure this is the right place for this discussion? This talk page should be better imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think once the discussion is archived, it can be copied to Talk:QIC. Gidip (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsampling is a tool. Like all tools it has meaning only in the use we make of it. We should notdismiss a tool. We must judge the finished product, not how to get there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a little bit confused of what is being opposed. Commons guideline, En Wikipedia guideline, User:Alvesgaspar suggestion that Commons talk:Quality images candidates would be a better place to discuss Commons:Quality images guidelines? I assume it is the first one, although I am not sure. I think the current guideline of not down-sampling is trying to prevent need to evaluate images like this, this or this which might have been an excellent quality images that met all other quality criteria, but down-sampling made it hard to use them. I Symbol support vote.svg Support current policy. --Jarekt (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long as a picture meets the requirements for the minimum size, I don't know, why reducing the image size should be bad. This does not affect the quality because the image is redrawn, and then has indeed just that size. Another thing is the quality of the image is stored - if it is compressed, it has a bad effect on the pressure.
  • If you want to ban shrinking the image size, you have also to prohibit the perspective correction, because perspective correction is nothing else than reducing. Nice greetings, --Haeferl (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Simply put, an image should be judged solely on what the image contains, not on how it got to be the way it is. If people aren't concerned with the lens used then they shouldn't be concerned if it has been downsampled or not. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for stated reasons above, but note that the quality/featured processes are a good place to nicely ask a user to contribute a higher resolution version if they have one, to improve their chances of success. For all we know the higher-resolution image may be quite sharp and contain more detail. They should still be able to refuse though. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify: By just downsampling it, you never improve a photo, while it could look better in 100% view after doing so. Photos shouldn't be automatically disqualified because you know that downsampling was used. So I say "should be evaluated in a reasonably detailed view, which may be in lower-than-full resolution". If that resolution is below your borderline of MPs, you may disqualify the photo. -- RE rillke questions? 13:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Roman Catholic parish church Saint Ulrich in Obertilliach, East Tyrol (Osttirol).

Hello, I'm a bit confused: At 17 November 2011 I nominated the picture on the right and it was promoted (as can be seen here) - but does not have a QI sign now. Is there anything I have done wrong or any reason this picture does not count? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There was some problems with the QIC-bot in November 2011 (Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#Something_wrong_with_the_QIbot). I have add the QI-tag manually. Maybe there are more pictures affected by this problem. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thank you -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Newcomer question[edit]

¿What are the requirements o conditions for a user to decline or promote or just coment an image?, regards Cvmontuy (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To me, Commons:Image guidelines --Miguel Bugallo 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the category system of QI[edit]

At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Martin_H., I have started a request concerning a user who obstinately removes QI categories from topic categories. It would be useful if someone who has more experience with the QI project would give a statement. - A.Savin 13:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have no experience with this project, but in my opinion it would be very useful that QI categories were linked to the country they belong in order to local wiki users could find them easily. You must consider that many users on local wikis do not speak English and try to find that parallel categorization tree is difficult for them. I have seen that many of the categories in Category:Featured pictures of Europe are linked to their country (probably all of them were, but Martin H removed some, why?!!), so the same can work with QI categories. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As Anna (Cookie)--Miguel Bugallo 23:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think linking is not to be confused with categorizing in an hierarchical category tree of topics.
Step 1: The categories need rename to reflect that "quality" refers to a Commons internal assessment and not a topic. Moving Category:Quality images of... -> Category:Commons:Quality images of... will be my suggestions here.
Step 2 then is to link(!!) the categories:
  • From projects, e.g. the Commons:WikiProject Europe or Portal:Europe. Projects and portals are the place to promote Wiki-internal quality assessments, see all other wikis, see en:Portal:Europe. The correct way is not to invent a topic ("quality"). The correct was is not to manipulate category trees so that the focus is not longer the sorting of media files by topic but showing media files based on user opinions.
  • From galleries using links to the category - or better: linking the the already existing project pages (Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Quality_images/) - and using marker templates in galleries such as Template:QI seal (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:QI_seal).
  • from categories, I already tried this, see the marker templates in Category:Europe at the upper right corner. In some cases, i.e. in absence of a gallery or a project or portal, the category can temporarily host some content related to project promotions, e.g. a short text "our best content" or something like that. In all other cases topic categories are still hierarchically sorted folders that non-discriminatory contain all media files related to that topic, and this means: any project collections have nothing to do in a topic category.
You see, there are so many possibilities. But there is a lot of work to do. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Protest_ACTA_2012-02-11_-_Toulouse_-_15_-_Anonymous_guy_with_a_black_and_white_scarf.jpg[edit]

Why can stay this image 16 days in the page? Is it criticism? Is it a personal criticism? --Miguel Bugallo 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Short survey - What browseres are you using[edit]

Hey guys, I'd like to know for further development of the MediaWiki:Gadget-QInominator.js gadget, what browser are you guys using. Helpo me out here please and tell me name and version. In particular I'm interested if anyone is using Internet Explorer with a version less than 8.0 --Dschwen (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a bunch! Then I'll just go ahead and update my code to use localStorage. We'll see if somebody complains. --Dschwen (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
IE 9.0.8112.16421 64-bit (what else). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
List of web browsers :P -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
64-bit??? Isn't available except IE9. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You've got to make yourself a bit more clear. Are you saying that IE9 is the only browser that is available as a 64-bit version? If so, then that is completely wrong. Or are you saying that IE9 is only available as a 64-bit version? That is wrong as well. --Dschwen (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-QInominator.js updated[edit]

Hi all, I updated the QInominator gadget. I converted it from using cookies (ugly hack) to HTML5 localStorage. It now allows allows editing of the nomination list (click on the number in brackets after the nomination link), and I made the description extraction a bit smarter (So you won't have to manually write or copy the image description for the nomination). Check it out if you are not yet using this gadget, and clear your cache if you already are. --Dschwen (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rules for Consensual Reviews[edit]

i don't understand why nominators are allowed to put in Consensual Review Page their own declined pictures. IMO, CR is a way to decide, when two or more reviewers disagree about a picture, and not a "Court of Appeal" for disappointed nominators. Some are well known in QIC page to use such behaviour systematically.

Proposal: Nominators nor authors are allowed to put own pictures in CR in case of a decline vote.
thoughts ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
And I don't understand the problem. If there is a majority for this picture it will be elected as QI, if not it will be declined independent of whom the picture is put in the review. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is work. To keep the QI process as efficient as possible it is desirable to minimize the amount of CR. --Dschwen (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for rowing against the flood guys, but I think the nominators should be allowed to contest an assessment and send it to CR. The reason is some (many) reviews lack quality and the nominator is the first, sometimes the only one, to pay attention to it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Alvesgaspar. The main people interested in any particular entry are the creator and the nominator (often the same person), no one else is likely to notice that there is a problem with the review - it is unlikely that anyone has time to check every single review. So if people disagree they need some process to allow them to be heard. If people are abusing the process (ie they submitt every image to CR yet few reviews are overturned) give them some friendly advice about what they need to improve. After all half the reason for QI is to improve the photographers/illustrators skills. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I think if the nominator is unsatisfied with the review, should rather point that out to the reviewer and ask for reconsideration. Allowing nominators to move their own nominations to CR is damaging the QIC process not only as increased workload to reviewers, but also by construing mistrust towards reviewers in general, and discouraging reviews altogether (after all what's the point I decline an image if the nominator then moves it to CR to attempt to give it one more chance?). This, often pushy behaviour, does not lead to a collaborative environment. And if the nominator does not accept the reviewers' opinion than why nominate in the first place. Is one of the reasons I stopped participating in QIC. --ELEKHHT 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

What I really dislike is systematic use of this option. --99of9 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- We have a way to assess the effectiveness of CR, which to determine the percentage of cases in which the original decison was reverted. But it would take a lot of work... But I agree with 99of9, of course. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • My comments, questions and proposal were only a joke and a test. I just wanted to know who would be the first to react. I had a bet with some friends. I won. Thank you. --Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Sounds like you played your friends for suckers. They must not know much about QIC... :-) --Dschwen (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well that admission has decreased Jebulon's credibility somewhat, please don't waste our time, let alone admitt to it! But obviously some people are concerned, I'm not sure why though. If no one agrees with whoever brought it to CR then the review stands when the image drops off the bottom of the CR list after 8 days. So just skip over the CR nominations of those who you think abusing the process. But CR should be seen as a quality control of the review process, image nominators and reviewers should observe what the consensus/standard is and stop nominating such marginal images or (or vice versa) reviewing so harshly. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, comments on my supposed credibility are superfluous. Please I beg you not to give me lessons, I am not a pupil and you're not my teacher ;). If I own any credibility on "Commons", it lies in my pictures. I do not think anyone waste time on this discussion further, if I believe the debate and the remarks it contains, which are very interesting. Thank you, and keep your humour: it's spring !--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes your images give you credit, don't waste it ;-). And ohhhhh another cruel joke, it may be spring where you are but some of us are heading into winter :-(. PS there are currently about 300 QI nominations and 16 in CR, one in 20 contested doesn't seem unwarranted. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • petty reason for starting this aside QI is meant to be quick process, 1 review is sufficient unless theres a really glaring error in the review just accept it CR should have very few enteries in there. I suggest that if there isnt a defiitive consensus within the 8 days then it should be closed based on the original review instead of waiting for that elusive extra vote. Gnangarra 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But I think that "real" CR (not the artificials, created only by the disagreement of the nominator) are often very interesting, and are a good way for photographers to improve their works.
    • @ Alvesgaspar: In my opinion, if review lacks of quality (depends of reviewers...), it is more for the positive assessments, and less for the negatives. Negatives are more careful because of the (good and fair) tradition of the need of expression of reasons to decline...--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) As long as a bot is doing the archive works I can't find out any ineffectiveness in CR.

(2) Pictures in CR are always just a fractional amount over all QI candidates. Actually we have about 240 QI candidates (just estimate, too lazy to count exactly) and 17 pictures in CR. So the ratio is far below 10 %. So we have no really a mass challenge here.

(3) Most of the candidates are clear QI oder not. But in same cases there is no clear and so the CR is gives the possibility to find a reasonably fair decision. There is no sense to divide "real" CR in "unreal" CR depending on the initiator. If there is a necessity to discuss there will accrue one.

(4) If there will be set a sanction on who is able to set the candidate into CR this will not chance anything. Jebulons proposal smells for me to be personal motivated.

Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this file ??[edit]

Hi there.

I nominate this picture in QIC page a few days ago, It had one support, then one oppose, and was therefore in Consensual Review. After that, it had two more supports, time was over and it was to be promoted as QI and... it disapeared suddenly today. Could somebody explain what happened ?
I've re-nominate it, but i'm not sure it is the good way to do...--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this file ?? (Again)[edit]

Hi there.

I nominate this picture in QIC page the 19 april. It had one support, was to be promotted today, and ... disapeared suddenly from the QIC page. Could somebody explain what happened ? Is it something wrong with the bot, or is it vandalism ? As one can see, this problem is the second regarding my own picture in few days... I hope an admin to check, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Busy IRL. Bot run was aborted. If this happens please put archived images back on page!!!! --Dschwen (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
OK thank you. ✓ Done--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Mbdortmund deceased[edit]

Dear colleagues,

I want to inform you that Mbdortmund passed away on 17th April 2012. He was a frequent member of QIC and beside of this a great photographer that donated to this project many wonderful pictures. Please condole if you like here. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that is sad to hear. --99of9 (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Condolences to family and friends. Mbdortmund was a great contributor. Yann (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for info. Very sorry. I wrote yesterday night a message on the special Kondolenzliste page in German WP.--Jebulon (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Very bad news. Condolences to family and friends. --Bgag (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Archive problem[edit]

I don't know if anyone noticed before, but there is same pictures several times in same archive page. For example, this one five times. –Makele-90 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot made a mess of the QIC page. It is now quite difficult to know what happened to images. Yann (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A little bit more descriptive than "made a mess" would be very helpful for me to find out what is going wrong. I just launched a bot run manually and to me it looked like there were no problems. --Dschwen (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have deactivated the bot for now until we can figure out what is going on here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to give an example today the bot did archived a lot of QIC [1]. Among thoses some were promoted [2] and others were forgotten such as this one (sorry I took examples with some of my pictures, really just because it was easier for me to find the links). I hope you can find what is going wrong, the bot is really helpful :D --PierreSelim (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
fully agree! We are lucky to have such a bot, and completely lost when he runs wrongly ! --Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Art-top pointed out to me that the Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Man made structures page has gotten very large again (this had been a problem a few months ago already). We'll have to archive that page. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it time that we break up that in several smaller subpages? I have already asked this several times. I think we could copy the structure of Valued Images with a benefit. Yann (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, breaking up may be in order here, but we should not fragment too much. I suggest to archive the page first to get the bot running again and then come up with a consensus for subdividing the page. --Dschwen (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Fine. We can see what to do with old QI when we have a new scheme. Yann (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Some (promoted) files by me disappeared once again[edit]

What happens, and what to do ? Any idea ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It happened to mine. I have recopied them back. Yann (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Je l'ai fait aussi, mais ça fait plusieurs fois que ça se produit, ça devient pénible, car ça fausse le truc.--Jebulon (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Oui, je suis d'accord. Voir mon message au dessus. Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It happened to me too. I did nothing and everything was alright the following day. --Kadellar (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal of nominating-reviewing[edit]

Sometimes I feel that there are hundreds of new QI candidates without any of the many unassessed nominations getting a review. I have read the guidelines again and I would like to make a proposal to have a new recommendation/petition for nominators that I didn't find:

If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review one of the other candidates.

I know it's not always possible, because we take a look at some images and cannot decide if promote them or not, but including this sentence, as a petition (not a rule), would make the voting system and the QICandidates page quicken.
In my opinion, it is also gentle to review other people's pictures, because they will do with yours. This is also used as a rule in some flickr groups. What do you think? Do you support the idea? Thank you for reading the proposal. --Kadellar (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and so do I, as often as possible.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree too. Yann (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It can't hurt to suggest it, reviewing other images also helps them look critically at their own photos --Tony Wills (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ownership" discussion between Wladyslaw and Jebulon[edit]

Yeah ! Keep away from my pictures !!--Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Would be interesting to know why "my pictures" are so magical for you that you don't keep away from them. ;-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It is only personal : they are your pictures !!!--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you can explain the logic behind your argumentation: why you can vote in my picture but I should avoid voting on yours? Stupid explanations like this even if I support your pictures is making it difficult to take you seriously. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely don't care if you take me seriously or not. But I'm really admirative with your ability of using extracts of Commons quotes in every occasion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Any chance to get an answer to my question? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
None.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Your answer speaks louder than words. Let's see what will happen next. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I deeply think that your reviews on my pictures are personal and unfair. I think that my reviews on your pictures are only technical, with facts. But I can understand very well that you think exactly the contrary. --Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I know how annoying it is if the same person keeps reviewing another persons images and I sometimes see tit-for-tat reviews going on. It is much better for the project if people get a variety of reviews from different perspectives. So make an effort to not review a lot of the same persons images, do only add constructive reviews, and do refrain from disruptive/non-review comments. This is not a competition, the aim of the project is to improve the quality of our images and the abilities of our photographers. If you disagree with a review take it to consensual-review without commentary about the reviewers biases. Both nominator and reviewer should consider the wider variety of comments given there and keep in mind the community consensus when submitting further images or making a judgment in subsequent reviews. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Upload a new version of QI images[edit]

I have a question: do you think it is "legal" to upload a new version of a picture which has been promoted QI. I think it is not, but would like to know the opinion of the community in this regard. Now, if I believe that a new version (same picture) is better to illustrate an article, I could upload it with a new filename but I am not happy to have a picture with no QI on thae article when there is a QI picture available. Should I then nominate for QI the new version of the same shot with a different filename? Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a regulation for your case in the guidance. But if you replace the old QI by a picture with a significant difference to the first version (like a different crop) I would renominate the image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
More or less, I agree. The problem is: what has to be understood by the word "significant" ? But please have a look at this:
Quality images retouched.png
Derivative work of a Quality image

This photo is a retouched work of a Quality image without significant loss of quality, so it meets also the guidelines for good images.


Deutsch | English | français |

This template was made by User:Carschten, he uses personaly it when he retouches a QI picture, uploaded as a derivative work, and I think the idea is interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Small addition to the criteria?[edit]

To ensure that our Quality Images meet current best-practice, can we please add the following criteria to the rules (as an extra item on the list of image page requirements):

I realize not many of us are used to adding this, but it's an easy thing to do, and the WMF are pretty keen to get evidence of consent up to scratch. Any objections? --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Thanks for this idea, but sorry, you wish to add this template in any case, even for sport events for instance? I guess it should be very difficult to receive the consent of this man, or of these men (another sport event Face-smile.svg)... Every country has his own laws regarding this matter ("public vs private"), and I think the "personality rights" template is enough for "Commons", (furthermore, this "consent" template is not enough, I mean for children). Could you please elaborate your proposal ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • For a sports event it's fine to use these tags, and to leave them on permanently:
{{consent|public}}
{{consent|appearspublic}}
That is no problem for us, only possibly for some reusers. The real problem is if none of the {{consent}} options apply (i.e. if consent has not been obtained, and it is not in public). The reason that PersonalityRights is no longer sufficient for us is that WMF resolution requires actually asking the subject if they are identifiable and private (and so does COM:PEOPLE). What would you like for children? I'd be interested if we need an extra parameter for them. --99of9 (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I really don't know, but I know that I'm basicaly embarrassed by pictures like our "Picture of the Day" of today I dislike very much, so I'm afraid I'm not neutral enough...--Jebulon (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't this proposal help us deal properly with images like that? --Avenue (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, especially if that was taken without the consent of the parents. --99of9 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we need {{consent|child}} to insist on (written?) consent of a child's guardian? We can discuss it at Template talk:Consent.--99of9 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I did not know about the {{consent}} template, but I see and understand that it is sort of needed in order to comply with the WMF board resolution about asking identifiable people for consent under certain circumstances. I am in doubt whether it shall explicitly be added to the guidelines, as the list of things you need to do in special cases are too numerous to mention (consider FOP depending on country, etc.). On the other hand, adding it explicitly could help educate the creators at Commons about this template and the need to ask for permission to publish in the cases mentioned in COM:PEOPLE. It is, after all, one of the most commons types of "special cases" to have identifiable people in photos.--Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't very familiar with it myself. I think it is worth adding to the requirements as a separate bullet point, since the board resolution is a fairly new development, and it will help ensure people don't overlook it. It might even be worth adding another bullet point listing other potentially desirable tags (e.g. {{FOP}}, {{Personality rights}}, {{RetouchedPicture}}, {{location}}, etc), without getting into a lot of detail about each one. --Avenue (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a good start, but it does beg the question of what all these policies and practices are. Do we have a handy summary we could link to? There is COM:PG, but it includes a lot of conduct guidelines that don't seem very relevant. COM:NCR is more relevant, but doesn't directly cover {{consent}}.
I've added {{consent}} to the see also section of COM:NCR, but that page is still quite incomplete (e.g. no discussion of privacy rights vs publicity rights vs personality rights). --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I also think we should expect quality images to go beyond the minimum requirements for contributing to Commons, i.e., to follow our "best practices", not just the minimal requirements. For instance, COM:PEOPLE says that "Use of this template [{{consent}}] is not required for compliance with these guidelines or other Commons policies", but for QI it seems reasonable to expect this template to be used (when relevant). --Avenue (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that FP/QI/VI should lead the way, because new contributors look here to see what they should do. P.S. I think the intent of that sentence in COM:PEOPLE is to say there are more than one way to express the required consent, and the template is just one option. Gnan's edit cannot be contradicted, because it is a bare minimum, but I would still like to see the actual consent tag (just as we expect geocodes and species_IDs, to ensure best practice). Now that I've reread your list of likely templates above, I agree, let's put all of them briefly in a single point. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, taking in the feedback from Slaunger, Avenue, and Gnangarra. How about the following: (I've slightly copyedited some for consistency and flow, an have updated Commons:Templates#File_description_pages to include all templates mentioned as important above)

Image page requirements
Quality image candidates must comply with all Commons policies and guidelines, and their image page description and documentation should represent best-practice:
  1. Copyright status: Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Description: Quality images must have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  3. Documentation: Quality images must include all relevantsuitable categories and all relevant templates, unless there is good reason not to (e.g. when {{Location}} would unneccessarily compromise privacy).
  4. Non-promotional: No advertisements or signatures are allowed in quality images. Information about authors and copyright holders should be located in the information section, and may also be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.

--99of9 (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, identifying all relevant categories may not always be easy. And the Commons:Templates page seems a bit overwhelming to me. I think listing the main ones here, while more verbose, would give better guidance. How about:
3. Documentation: The image page should include suitable categories and relevant templates such as {{Consent}}, {{FOP}}, {{Location}}, {{RetouchedPicture}}, and non-copyright restriction tags.
--Avenue (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Rather than selectively list them here, I'm trying to follow Slaunger's point above, and refer to a list elsewhere. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that issues around identifying people need to be addressed, I would always dispute that {{location}} is one template that must be optional. as someone whos photographed a number of rare and endangered species identifying where they are can lead to unintended consequences. Images should be categorised in general sense rather than "all relevant" as peoplle have different ideas about what is relevant and category structures are fairly dynamic with changes occuring acording the efforts of individuals at the time Gnangarra 23:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I didn't really mean all relevant categories! I've also edited it to give the photographer some freedom (although I've used what I think is a more straightforward example, since sometimes locating a rare species would be a great educational thing! ...but I know what you mean) --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, some comments about Point 2)#Description. I agree about the Taxa naming for organisms, even if it is sometimes very difficult for non specialists (like me...) but my question is: why a particular identification is especially needed only for species, and not for other precisely identifiable things ? The reason is encyclopedical, I guess. So I think that we should ask for a most precise identification possible in any case and for any matter. I have a special example in my mind, among others: the coats of arms. Unidentified CoA should not be accepted in QI/VI/FP, as they are always identifiable (for instance).--Jebulon (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the description should be accurate, and templates be used where appropriate the the problem that can arise the greater the detail and information requirement specified in "rules" the easier it is to create situations where abuse could occur or where language barriers could effectively eliminate an image from assessment for something other than the images quality. In most cases when reviewing an image a category, a more detail description or location can be added by the person reviewing. The last thing we want to create is another battle ground or a barrier to assessment so we need to leave sufficient wiggle room that the person reviewing can exercise a reasonable level of independance in assessing. Gnangarra 01:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the proposed new formulation. But as Jebulon, I think the description requirement should be broadened out, such that it includes other subjects than just taxonomy. I think the description should be at a detail level, where it is unambiguous (is there a better word for this in English. I am not native...) what is meant. So how about changing from "This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." to "This includes describing the subject to a level of unambiguous identification." (or something like that) I think this generic formulation (or some tweaked version thereof) is valid for many subject area. Examples.
  • QI of a train: Should state the model of the train.
  • QI of a living organism: A taxon shall be given to a level where is visually distinct from other organisms parallel in the hierarchy
  • Buildings: A precise location shall be given. For instance at the corner between Street A and Road B. No more specifics are needed about town etc. if that can be inferred from the categories.
  • Coat of arms: Identify which it is (as they are unique)
  • ....
--Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Me too. How about the following wording:
Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and a description that unambiguously identifies the subject. For instance, the description should give the model number of a train, the street location or geographical coordinates for a building, and the most detailed taxon that can be determined visually for an organism.
--Avenue (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I like this sentence proposed by Avenue: "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and a description that unambiguously identifies the subject." It is precise, short and generic for many (all?) subject areas. Maybe we do not need to spell out the examples (in order to keep the rules short)? Yes, I know I did, but that was mostly to do a sanity check... --Slaunger (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we don't need a lot of examples, but I think something including about scientific/taxonomic names is still worthwhile; otherwise we may get arguments about whether common names will do. --Avenue (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding #2 (Description) I would eliminate the reference to a meaningful title. Meaningfulness is a slippery concept. While I agree that we should avoid the automatic titles given by the cameras, it is close to impossible to describe the subject of a picture in its title. Language is another problem, of course... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
    • So, any proposal, Joaquim ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Regarding 99of9 proposal above, #2 should read: Description: Quality images must have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That phrase is in the existing rules. I think it's fine to require a meaningful title because otherwise it would satisfy the Renaming criteria. But I don't feel strongly either way about leaving it in QIC rules. --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
          • what about saying a suitable title thats sufficient to indicate that the title needs to be policy compliant but not over strong to evoke unnecessary discussion on the title or have image rejected. DSC0001.jpg is neither suitable or meaningful, yellow_flower_01 may not be all that meaningful but it is suitable if the image is of a yellow flower, as would SLQ_f32767.jpg while not really meaningful it is suitable if the image was from State Library of Queensland and its unique id there is f32767. I know its a subtle distinction that gives rise to reject the worst names but not enough to turn file names into a QIC weapon of mass disruption. Gnangarra 13:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

QIVoter helper![edit]

I like the feature but I'd like a button to insert a comment/request without promoting or declining!?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Less talking, more voting! --Dschwen (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I think talking is good. Especially, if there is some easily correctable issue. --Slaunger (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Talking helps and helped me a lot, I think QI is also here for that --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Should a editor of a picture detain from voting at QIC?[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What matters in the QIC process is the review. I've often seen a reviewer correcting an image and giving an opinion in his review (I don't like the idea of voting... what matter is review as I said). Here, the first version by Abigor is not bad, but the change by Aleks really improve the picture IMO. I find it a bit disappointing if his opinion is silenced because he improved the file (it's a kind of review IMO). I'm reverting the file to Aleks G, and I'm supporting this version Symbol support vote.svg Support. --PierreSelim 11:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is of course commendable if files are improved. However in QIC votes are counted and while the nominator cannot vote for his own nomination, the 'improver' shouldn't neither. It is unethical. His comments and remarks stand of course. Biopics 13:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I see nothing against the rules that "improver" shall not vote. And also from ethical point of view I can't find s.th. dishonest. Often here at QIC an improvement is just a few clicks and not a basic revision. It would be nice not to make mountains out of molehills. --Taxiarchos228 13:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
        • It has been common practice for years at QIC. But as lowering of the standards is felt on all levels these days, who am I to comment :-((. I won't make new photographs any more for sure. Biopics 13:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Some people call practice-sharing and learning from each other "lowering the standard", I call it collaborative and instructional work. --Taxiarchos228 13:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
            • You're comments are missing the point. QIC is a one-vote-promotes and CR a simple-majority system. That makes it fishy to vote for your own or self-edited projects. So don't. It is an easy principle: you touch, you abstain. This avoids discussions of vote stacking or favoritism. These are general remarks and not specifically for this case. Biopics 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry, but you are missing the point. If a user is positive about a picture than he is convinced with or without a minor retouching work. If a user removes a dustspot or corrects a perspective distortion he is not really an author of the picture because those works have no threshold of originality and there is for sure no conflicting interests. Devolving your argumentation would mean I could never vote for a featured article if I find a punctuation error which I correct. Either a picture has the basically the quality for QI or not. Minor edits does not really affect the quality of a picture. --Taxiarchos228 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
                • Listening (or reading) is not your strongest isn't-it? There is no talk of featured articles here as that project uses a completely different promotion system (with its own flaws, but unrelated). Maybe you should read the comments above again and address the issues that are relevant.  B.p. 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • Maybe you should, I gave an example by using an analogy. And I am totally clear about your opinion but I don't agree with it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is a sound principle not to promote a picture in which you were involved. The example given above, about removing some dust spots, is misleading because it is not representative of the whole spectrum. If we are discussing what the general principle should be then we should aim to cover all situations, including those in which the new version barely resembles the original one. However nothing prevents the editor from reviewing the picture (without !voting) and use all of his eloquence to promote its goodness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the examples are given represents the situation very good because extensive retouching works from other users than the photographer we do not have. And beside of it: if you think we need a new rule start a initiative including it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am obviously out of touch because it is not a situation that I expect to see. When a file is being considered for QI you are evaluating the skill of the photographer/author and the resulting image. There is that dual purpose of helping the photographer/author develop their skills and helping Commons increase the standard of images. So I would expect that people (other than the author) would not modify the image while it is under consideration, personally I would normally just suggest what improvements are needed and leave the author to make the changes. Or for more imvolved work (eg more than just remove dust spots), I would upload my suggested "improvements" as a seperate image to demonstrate what I meant. If the image wouldn't pass QI without the changes, then the changes are significant and we are evaluating the work of more than one author - not really what QI was set up to handle. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest we do something radical and way outside the norm for commons lets just assume good faith in the efforts of fellow contributors rather than makes more rules that presume otherwise. Gnangarra 02:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a pitty to fight for a QI, really who cares ? My point is what matters is the review, I'm striking my vote ... --PierreSelim (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Preview: Deduster - (almost) lossless dust spot removal[edit]

Check out MediaWiki:Deduster. I'm developing this specifically with QI in mind. --Dschwen (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow ! Great !--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Impressive.  B.p. 16:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting. I could have used that right now. Looking forward to try it out once you get to that point. Face-smile.svg --Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Not forgotten, but the project is on ice until after the Wikimania. --Dschwen (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"self-moving" to Consensual review[edit]

Hello everybody.
Question.
I nominate a picture in QIC. Another user makes comments, asks for informations, but do not vote, (because of his first comments), I answer to the questions, and the picture remains unassessed.
Am I allowed to put my own unassessed picture (blue framed) in consensual review ?
In my opinion, obviously no. But...
The case is here.
Thanks for answering.

--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather renominate in a while. --Dschwen (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If a reveiwer has ask a question, I'd suggest notifying the user on their talk page that you've answered if they dont respond in a reasonable time then send it to CR as its there to discuss an image. Gnangarra 00:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Excuse please, i thought, its correct so. --Ralf Roleček 20:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I would probably not do it myself, but I do not find it terribly objectionable either if the purpose of putting it to CR is to postpone a little the closure of a candidate as undecided, where we are just waiting for the last details to be resolved. After all, in the example, you are in the middle of a constructive process (albeit with slow progress at times), and it seems "efficient" to get the nomination closed with a support or oppose decision now that some energy has been put into pointing out and addressing fixable issues. If closed as undecided and later renominated you have to somehow revive the argument from the last review and figure out how far we got..., which is more bureaucratic than efficient. Nominations which have received no response should not be changed to CR. --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

milestones[edit]

DYK that on July 6 QI would have been active for 6 years and that there are currently more than 29,500 at the current rate 30,000th image should pass in July. Gnangarra 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the procedures[edit]

I've felt current layout of the QIC page difficult to navigate and the process of evaluation is cumbersome; And the QIvoter script, while ok, has a habit of ignoring when there are more than two parameters to the sub-templates.

I think we should remake the procedure to have the nominations each under a separate heading, as they are under consensual review directly instead of trying to fit a discussion chocked inside galleries. AzaToth 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Either I'm useless in communication, or no one cares :) Anyway, unless there are anyone in oposition to the proposal (which is to get rid of the galley-tags and simply use a sub-heading per proposal) I'll implement it tomorrow. AzaToth 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Procedure is fine as it is. Please don't change anything without a broad consensus/discussion. Thank you.  B.p. 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Offcourse I wouldn't do anything without consensus, but if no one is raising any opinions, then I must assume they silently agrees (w:WP:SILENCE); And I strongly disagree that the current procedure is fine. It's difficult to nvigate, it's difficult to see what changes have been made unless you traverse the diff. There is a high risk of edit conflicts. The templates invites to cluttered oneliners with discussions, and the QIVoter script fails to take number of arguments into account. AzaToth 17:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I am accustomed with the usability of QIC. But I understand that for a beginner this syntax is quite horror. Background of this very small modus is the quick and bot-readable archiving. If someone wants to change this he has to consider the full automatical archiving process. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
So we'll have 200 sections... yes, that makes perfect sense for navigability. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


Whatever the outcome here is, please do not make WP:BOLD changes here. Any change to the procedure or page sectioning will most likely break the bot and cripple QI. Discuss first. And be very sure about what you want to change an wheter it will be a substantial improvement, as it will take actual work (most likely by me) to adapt the bot and the helper scripts. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps AzaToth wants to write his own bot and script. -- RE rillke questions? 08:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment

  • -1) w:WP:SILENCE is nor a policy neither a guidelines.
  • -2) It is made for ENGLISH Wikipedia and I'm not English, and not a native english-speaking.
  • -3) It is made for WIKIPEDIA, and here, it is "COMMONS".
  • -4) No matter, but may I say that I philosophically disagree with the content of this "thing"? "Silent" does not mean "agreement" everytime. Only two days after, it may mean, for instance, "I was not aware of this proposal".
  • -5) Among others, I'll strongly oppose against any implementation of any bot or tool or anything, without a previous discussion followed by a large consensus. I did so when somebody introduced 9 months ago without any discussion a so called warning regarding the downsampling in FPC. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment agree that silence isnt necessarily agreement, especially for major changes also less than two days isnt sufficient time to discuss such changes, ignoring the effect on automation. As for the proposal I dont see individual pages as helpful the idea is QI is suppose to be quick, 95%+ images get only one comment this is a waste of resources creating individual pages for one comment. I also suspect that it'll create alcoves for drama driving people away. Given the volume of nominations and having all those pages transcluded into one page is just placing a heavy load on the servers not only would they be loading a view of the image but also an additional page. That said maybe an argument could be made for a page for each day rather than sections which could then be archived but it'd need some samples. Gnangarra 09:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

also on the silence theres been holidays in US and many people are in transit to or prepaing for Wikimania, which starts with wikitakes manhattan tomorrow. Gnangarra 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree I was way too quick with moving forward, though ultimatly after a reasonable timeframe, where not a single soul have voiced any disagreement, assumption of consensus must be possible to assume. AzaToth 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no !--Jebulon (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Two rows of images (12 images) under one section is more comfortable than entire images per day as now. Now I ignore all sections with more images. But all nominations including CR are showcase in a page as now; otherwise chances that old nominations are ignored. Jkadavoor (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AzaToth that the current user experience is suboptimal, and I think it is possible to improve with some streamlined script assistance, and some clever template logic with a transparent and easy to user user interface. I think it can be made such that the overview page look different (for instance with even smaller thumbs than today, and not even with the review text visible, just a grid of thumbs with a visual indication of its current state to make it easier to load the page) and another "review" view opened when clicking on a thumb.
I actually think it is possible to have each nom in a subpage, such that the review progress on that nom can be followed from the watchlist. That would be very convenient indeed. But all the subpage handling should be encapsulated in script wizard logic for instance when nominating pictures (it shall be much easier than e.g. nominating an FPC or VIC).
Regarding the clever template logic, something along the lines of what is done in COM:VIC could be adapted. Here, there are also two different views of a nom subpage depending on whether you have an overview view or a review view. the views should be adapted to the QIC process of course.
And of course all this should be correlated with bot tasks, scripts etc. A quite large development task. Really, one should first list the requirements for the process and then discuss possible technical implementations.
--Slaunger (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually didn't mean to imply that I thought each nomination should be in it's own subpage, but merely under it's own subsection. Offcourse these subsections can be excluded from the TOC. AzaToth 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
A subpage per nom is inappropriate bloat. There are not many edits per nomination, per design of QI. QI id neither FP nor VIC where people are suppesed to discuss every picture to death. Even if that may have become a recent trend on QI that does not mean we should change the QI process, it means we should educate people on how to act on QIC. --Dschwen (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about limiting the number of nominations per user per day? In some flickr groups, we can add only one, two or three images per day. Here some people add 6+ images together to flood the sections. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed already. Except for some people who dump 20 almost identical images on the page on a regular basis I don't see a problem. QI is an effort to build a large library of images peer reviewed according to a minimal set of technical standards. As I see it, we want to provide our endusers with a many reviewed images as possible. Limiting the candidate influx is counter productive in my opinion. Just to reiterate, this is not FPC where we are looking for an absolute best of the best, and where it makes sens to force users to be highly selective abut the images they nominate. This is "just" QI. Please do not make it into some kind of jealously guarded trophy! --Dschwen (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree QI is about just recognising the efforts of our contributors to provide quality reusable images, its also a place where we can direct people to view only the work of Wikimedians with only 30,000 QI out of 13m plus images we are a longway from from having too many, it'd be nice to see the % of QIs rise over the next few years. Gnangarra 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"just" QI? Then it is OK. Jkadavoor (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for review[edit]

Morning folks! Just a quick request if I may - I've been uploading a bunch of photos from my tour of the UN Buffer Zone in Cyprus (which can be seen at Category:SalopianJames in Cyprus), and was wondering if any of them would be worth putting forward as QI candidates? Given my past track record in nominations here, I doubt my own opinions are of much help to me in that regard, so if anyone would be kind enough to have a quick skim through them I'd be grateful. Thanks, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion they are good enough for a nomination at QI. Good look --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

user: AzaToth[edit]

This user like it to put all images to decline because of adventurous reasons. It makes no fun anymore. --Ralf Roleček 02:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

...Maybe you noticed that I did not nominate pictures here anymore since a few days...--Jebulon (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
He does seem to be doing quite a few declines which are either
  1. Based on criteria other then image quality
  2. Get promoted after discussion
I think that this can be sorted, but I agree, it's a bit of an annoyance currently. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are no "adventurous reasons" in my decisions. I agree that I have a higher threshold for what's a quality image; This is because a quality image can never have it's status revoked, thus it's important that an image is not only sufficient good, but is actually a quality image. I base my decisions from COM:QIC#Guidelines and COM:I, and especially in the following areas (all inspected at full resolution):
  • Primary subject should be in focus, unless motion blur is desired effect.
  • No distracting noise
  • No JPEG artifacts
  • No chromatic aberration
  • No stitch errors for panoramas
  • The image must have a meaningful title, which I interpret that the title must include primary subject, and that "normal people" should be able to understand the title, and not only experts
If you feel I've interpret the guidelines wrong, please explain which sections I've interpret wrong, and to what extent; Or you could open up a proposal to lower the expected quality of quality images, so they are less than what COM:I describes. AzaToth 17:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Your idea of naming criteria are too strict IMO. If you take a photo at a place, having that be the title of the image is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't mean one needs to be an "expert". The description is for a more detailed explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems with the fact that AzaToth's threshold is a bit higher, but don't agree with the modus operandi of declining directly all pictures that are not good enough. The Decline tag should be only used if there is no chance that the picture becomes QI, for all other cases a comment is welcome but the nomination should remain open to give to the author the chance to fix the problems, otherwise the pictures vanish after 2 days. I already tried to explain it to AzaToth but nothing changed. To me it is ackward that so many pictures go from Decline to Promotion, that should be an exception Poco a poco (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You are right that I need to better myself to follow up on images after they've been updated. AzaToth 10:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Well, I went through the CR pictures and agree with AzaToth on all but one case. Yes, AzaToth could have justified his votes better. But the same (or worse) happened with the supporters, who decided to vote against him and offered no objective justifications (rather then 'QI to me'). What I see here is too much resentment and too less objectivity... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @ Alvesgaspar: you are probably right, but how do you explain these (almost) unanimous "resentment", and "votes against him" ? --Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • We are just human... And when people are too much involved they tend to become less objective. I have been (almost) away from the QI forum for some time, have no issues with any of the protagonits and am not aware of the recent dramas. This way I can be more objective in the assessments (though may be a bit too strict, as usual...). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems that some are more "just human" than others...;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Of course, that is part of life! If you allow me a bit of "cheap wisdom" (last expression is translated from the Portuguese, maybe has no sense in English), please remember that people give much less importance to us and to our acts than we imagine. That is because ... they are essentially centered on themselves! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Face-smile.svg ça ne veut rien dire en Français non plus (on a quelque chose d'équivalent), mais j'ai tout compris !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- People here are right in one point: no picture can be opposed on the basis of its file name. @AzaToth: please retract on those oppositions as they are not supported by the agreed guidelines. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I would really like to have an discussion regarding that. First the guidelines says "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." which I interpret to have a decent filename (title == filename). Also that "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects." per my interpretation implies that laymen should be able to decipher the filename to get an idea what the image entail, not only so called "experts". Thus I disagree without your implication that filenames are not supported but agreed guidelines. AzaToth 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Toddington railway station MMB 11 37324 5619.jpg
    • Even if naming problems were a decline reason, not just a comment reason, your reading is still way too strict. Every image I upload has a meaningful name. You complain about everything no matter what. You complain that the subject must be the title, and then decline when the subject is in the title "because it's not for laymen". My names are a lot more meaningful than most - they state the general subject, a reference number and then specific details. I accept that the general subject is not always obvious, but that's what the title is for, describing what is in the photo, even if it isn't obvious.
      As for the laymen issue... we're not just for laymen. Say you told me that a photo was of Dromaius novaehollandiae, and demanded that be in the title. That means fuck all to me, but it's a taxa name so you demand it in the title. But tell me, how many non-experts could tell you that Dromaius novaehollandiae is an emu? Now, consider my title for the image you declined on the right, File:Toddington railway station MMB 11 37324 5619.jpg. Your decline comment was Insufficient title, the main subject is clearly not Toddington railway station, and the numbers are totally incomprehensible for laymen --AzaToth 20:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Now, I can tell you that this was taken at Toddington railway station. In fact, I can see it in the background. It may not be the most obvious part, but it's what the picture's of. Then the numbers are the locomotives in the picture. I accept, not for laymen, but does that mean they shouldn't be there? And if you don't believe that Toddington station is the subject, then the trains are the subject and so by your own logic the title should reflect that (which it does). If you don't believe it should be numbers, then what? Just "trains"? The titles need to be usable by everyone, and to someone like me, saying it's "a train" is not enough. I can see it's a train, but what train is it? If we can't put that in titles, then we should do the following:
      Your "rules" and interpretations are ridiculous. Quit it and don't ever review my photos again. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Please go ahead and start the discussion. But I won't participte, as I'm now leaving for vacancies! Ah, don't forget the "special cases" where the file name is in Chinese, Vietnamese or Khmer (maybe we should a version of the title for every wiki language? Face-smile.svg) One last thing: Commons is not a bureaucracy and we are supposed to have fun here. I some people are already pissed of, maybe we should start questioning our own behavior... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Personal meanings:
-Certainly there is no more fun for me in QIC for the moment, that's why I left and did not nominate since days anymore, even if I still upload. Not enough gold nuggets (fortunately there are some !) among a lot of uninteresting stuff automaticaly uploaded by boring daily series, always the same kind of trivial buildings, with the same standard light, unpleasant and cantankerous nominators when daring decline their pictures, and to many conflicts or dramas due to oversized egos, retaliation or revenge votes, false statements with the sole purpose of countering an earlier opinion, use of vote only in order to make a point etc...). So, no more fun, not only because of AzaToth's behavior, but he is the trigger.
-Everybody can vote and express an opinion about pictures in QIC, that's the rule. Even the one, less able to do so. But in my poor opinion, those who don't (and never did) nominate any picture taken by themselves should maybe remain a bit more discreet, and not to behave with arrogance, pedantry, and patronizing.
-To be clear, as we don't know what he is able to show us, I think that AzaToth's assessments are not credible. He never had any technical legitimacy here in "Commons".
-BUT BUT BUT, in the current time, my poor opinion has no importance, because he has the absolute right to do "what" he does now, and to do it "how" he does. So, because QIC is now a farce, a great circus, un grand n'importe quoi, which has almost nothing more to do with "quality images", I prefer to stop temporarily my nominating collaboration to this project, where I have nothing more to prove. I'll continue to comment and assess, if I want to.
-I'll continue to upload pictures too, because I love "Commons", and I'll continue to take pictures, I hope useful, or funny, or interesting, or special, or unusual, or technical, or historical, for "Commons". Probably, I'll re-nominate in QIC after some weeks, when less clouds in our sky, after the end of my vacations time, beginning next week. Friends interested by my work may have a look, for time to time, to my "imports" page, and I'd be happy with comments and messages on my talk page. Anyway, have fun !
-A bientôt, see you soon, bis bald, tot ziens, and, last but not least, vi ses snart !--Jebulon (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
QI should not be about proving yourself, it should be about providing a service to our users by providing them with as large a set of images as possible. Pedantry is unfortunately counterproductive. Please do not interpret the QI guidelines overly strictly, it is not worth it to alienate our contributors. It hurts the project in the long run. That is pretty obvious from this discussion. Relax guys and take a few minutes to surf Special:Random/File just to get a feel for the quality of average uploads. Maybe that will help to re-calibrate your view what a technically good image is... --Dschwen (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
ACK --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a common problem we are facing with some reviewers (who are not regular contributors in the sense that they may not a photographer or a retired one who has enough FPs/QIs, so not interested to participate more) who make very strict reviews. A good review up to a certain level is always appreciated. But these people have less practical experience, or over experience in case of the retired ones; so making poor assumptions frequently. It is very insulting to me earlier, but now I am taught to take it light. Face-smile.svg Subject knowledge is also an issue. I try to review works only that I have enough knowledge.
  • @AzaToth: You are a good reviewer; but we can't expect that much quality for QI as in FP. And, I don't think "title" means "file name"; otherwise it can be specified in the guidelines. It may mean "caption", an abstract of description as the first line in desription. File name can be in any language too.
  • Any way, take it light; my friends. Now I'm more interested in projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera; considering Commons just as place to dump my files. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The ego-feeding part is an important component of our picture forums because it promotes quality and encourages new talents to participate. But it should not degenerate into a logo counting competition among users and I suspect that is precisely what's happening now. Much more important than that is, in my opinion, the didactic part. I said it many times and will repeat it now: most of what I know about digital photography was learned in Commons, through the assessments (often harsh) of other photographers. Please don't jeopardize that component by chasing away the more strict reviewers. There is no such thing as "over experience" or a "good review up to a certain level". Believe me, Jkadavoor, I was much harsher in my assessments when I was a regular than I am now (any vet here will confirm that)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree partially. You assess(ed) harshly (I remember some nice conflicts with you !), Alvesgaspar, but you submitt(ed) your own pictures in the same time. You were and are legitime. With more than 50 FPs, a great collection of QI, a lot of nice and featured SVG contributions, you are one of our "sacred cows" (that's why "logo counting" could be important too...), but it has always been possible to decline or discuss your pictures with you, with no drama. You never tried to ridicule your antagonists. Some do this here everyday. Second, there is a way to go, words to use, and words to avoid, when assessing. And more to avoid than to use, when occasionnal participant, like in any situation of "real life", I mean. And third, being a "strict reviewer" is not enough to make a "good reviewer". Last but not least, I am a bit disappointed with the lot of many and many absolutely useless pictures, with no value, (like the part-of-roof-of-the-next-corner-restaurant, the 583th tunnel, or the 6542nd train under rain), for a repository of media like "Commons" is. I repeat: there are many other picture website for beauty contests.--Jebulon (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, we categorize the images, so train pictures aren't shoved in anyone's face. Plus you have to be careful what you call useless. There is a pretty big train community on and off wiki (just to pick that one particular example). Having those pictures as QI does not take away from the other pictures. It just adds to the collection (you can argue that it ties up reviewer time, but everyone here chooses if and what to review. Ignored pic just drop off the page!). --Dschwen (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Hmmm hmmm. You are probably right, and I'm probably srong. Sorry if I can not manage to be as politically correct as you are. No matter. As said Alvesgaspar, we are only humans, after all...--Jebulon (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Not every picture can fit to all liking and preferences. There are also pictures I don't like; but: to call them "useless" is quite arrogant and disproportionate. Hopefully in Commons never will be a institution that will divide methodical pictures into "usefull" and "useless". From this day I will stop my work here immediately. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Here I agree with Dschwen; we can't assume some work is useless. Everything outside our domain is useless to us but may be very important to others. But the conflicts between Wladyslaw and Jebulon is a different issue; I have no easy solution for that. Face-smile.svg -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't have a conflict with Jebulon. If he has a conflict/ problem with me that's not my point. I stand to my opinion, it doesn't matter if it is Jebulon or not. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • To claim that there is no useless images in "Commons" is simply false and demagogic.--Jebulon (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Choose your words carefully, read what I have written and stop interpreting a clear statement of me. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Again ??? And so what if I don't ? Just another pathetic threat for a whingeing report to COM:AN/U ? As I felt to be understood, maybe somebody could help to explain to Mr Taxiarchos228/Waldyslaw that he is another time kindly but firmly requested to avoid talking to me directly, as I do myself. suggestion : maybe could he stop harrassing me by commenting every word I use and every comment I made, the best way for that is just to eject my username from his watchlist (as I did for his nicknames). As usual, he seems to be very familiar with giving orders like :"choose", "read", "stop"... Three orders in the same sentence, bravo, nice performance. But I generally don't obey (such) orders. Last but not least, maybe could he consider to protect himself from any paranoïd thoughts: my previous comment was not an answer to him, but to other users in this discussion. @Jee: you say "Everything outside our domain is useless to us". Could be right maybe, my friends, for those of us who have "a domain". I have not, or I have all, and try to keep my mind open (not easy everytime, ok Face-smile.svg). That's why I feel free, (and even arrogant enough Clin) to think that there are useless pictures in "Commons", and not only for my taste... --Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
            • I didn't tell there is no useless images in Commons; I mean we can't say some images are useless (in QI) based on our knowledge. I too have different interests that you can see in my flickr stream. BTW, I enjoy quarrels between you two (the top two contributors in QI), much more now. Clin -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • @Alvesgaspar: I didn't consider you among the retired ones (if you think so, I afraid.); seeing a few nominations from you here and in FP. Further, I expects reviews from people like you and Paolo who are in similar field of mine. I still remember your first comment on my second fpc. But I have complaints with some others. Face-smile.svg
    • "good review up to a certain level" - because this is "just QI"; not "real QI"/FP. Face-smile.svg Please don't make standards base on your current equipment. An SLR is better than a compact; but good Leica lens outperform most Nikon/Canon lens. A 100mm macro lens is good; but it has poor DOF compared to a 150-200mm. So quality is a compromise; we have to make better results with cheaper ones.
    • "over experience" - Lack of mind to learn from the newbies. Face-smile.svg
    • To me, subject knowledge should be more important than technical aspects (like jpeg artifacts) while reviewing; that is why our so called badges have little value in Wikipedia and similar projects. While submitting a nomination, I expect a review from at least one person who has more knowledge about that subject than me. But people ask stupid simple questions and reject with careless words like "just another xxxxxx". I'm getting better feedback when I submit them in the talk pages of the projects I mentioned earlier (although for some other purposes). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Jkadavoor (Jee), Commons is not an encyclopedia, so subject knowledge is not important in this project, see Commons:What_Commons_is_not. For quality images, we are just assesing the quality of the image. It should all be very easy. Photos of reasonable quality should take seconds to review, without rambling arguments. Danrok (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all." No need of subject knowledge to assess educational media? Face-smile.svg -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Something often forgotten here: "Quality" to be assessed is not only for the picture itself, it concerns the title, the caption, the categorization at a good level, the size, the description etc... as explained in the guidelines.--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree (mostly) wit AzaToth. Especially in the This is because a quality image can never have it's status revoked, thus it's important that an image is not only sufficient good, but is actually a quality image. part. I only disagree about the file naming issues. Author names in file names are OK really. Also there is no requirement to upload own files to be part of this project. If your image is not good enough don't nominate it and if you do it anyway learn to live withe the critics.  B.p. 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the strictness of an opinion, the problem is the credibility. If user act up to be the "right evaluator" or "keeper of the quality" without or only little contributing his own images than this behaviour has a bad taste. It was very symptomatic to see how Biopics criticized (rightly) some months ago several dustspots on my picture, positively hunting them and one of his very few pictures he stand here at QIC this year had exactly the same problem he criticized remorseless. Of course: someone without comprehensible image work can also be a good reviewer. That is not the problem. But if a reviewer just behaves like a determined or aggressive detractor this is definitely not this kind of "strictness" that is useful or desirable. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Images taken at zoo and with no location data.[edit]

I think images taken at zoo and images with no location data are not valid reasons to decline a QI candidate. Several images are being declined for these reasons. -- JDP90 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the same like you. There is not such a point at the guidelines. But if someone is asking me to add the geotag I satisfy the request. But I have saw some dubious delince reasons. Such is life. Sadly! --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Geotagging would be much appreciated! (independent from any decline/promote decision). --Dschwen (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and I let a message to MPF, but no answer so far. Yann (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that a VI needs geodata, also agree that a QI with geodata is better than one without and, as Taxiarchos mentioned above, I add it on request. But, IMO, there is no point in adding the geodata to all pictures of e.g. one single monument, if this information is already available in the category. The category is the right place to put the geodata in these cases (architectural subjects is what I mostly shot), instead of doing so in all pictures included in it, this is redundant. My 2 cents. Poco a poco (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Geocoding can be added on request without a problem. But what is the point of decline images taken at zoo by giving reasons like It means for example, that its subspecies is not determinable, making the image zoologically worthless; also it is subject to morphological and behavioural, etc., abnormalities brought on by conditions in captivity, which make it atypical of the normal appearance of the species; it can't be relied on as a good example of what the species looks like under natural conditions. - MPF 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC) and Zoo pic. I'd support a similar pic of one in the wild, with location data - MPF 12:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC). Is these reasons have anything to deal with quality images? -- JDP90 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Poco a poco, please do not make up your own policy for geocoding. A category is the appropriate place for object location info, but the priority on commons is to code the camera {{Location}}, and that is useful for every picture of a monument. It makes the images discoverable on maps and searchable using our geospatial search tools. --Dschwen (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, my opinion is that this project's main task is to provide enciclopedic media to all other brother projects. Given that the location of a monument is available (e.g. through the category) the added value to the world of the exact location of the photographer when taken the picture of the document -which location is know-, is, let's say it like this, of a limited value. As said, just my opinion. Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Coordinates are very useful for buildings, monuments and stuff, but not for a portrait or a studio shot. Anyway, in case of doubt, we'd better write them! They don't bother haha. About the zoo thing, I think we can't decline an image only for that reason. It's the picture what we are talking about. A wildlife picture is obviously more valuable and difficult, but zoo pictures can be QI, just the same as they could be awful, there are very different zoo pictures... Zoo pictures might be declined as VI, at least in a general scope, but they could be VI in a tighter scope as a captivity example of the species. --Kadellar (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Location data is to determine where the organism is found in natural environmental to understand more about their habitat. So it has little/no value if a zoo shot. That is why we need not require the location info for zoo shots. Further, most zoos are very famous and location data is not required for every image. Just my opinion. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Vladimir Shamanov. Cabinet photo.jpg[edit]

Hello fellows!

This image was not created by a Wikimedian but it was supported by User:Florstein on 4th August 2012. This support was wrong. I support a removal od the QI-status because it is an obvious violation of QI-rules. --High Contrast (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

+1 --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree too. But how to do ? It is an image of quality, but it cannot be a "Quality Image" because of the rules. It is a "substantial mistake", (as could say the french law). Let's remove the label in the file page, and the picture from the Quality categories.--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That is rather a rule on promotion, not the status. Once an image has been promoted, the QI seal cannot get removed afaik. There are other QI's "violating" current guidelines (created by a non-wikimedian, below 2MP), maybe we should establish a policy to revoke the status... or simply accept the current QI count and have a better look at all future candidates being about to be promoted. - A.Savin 21:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it a russian speciality, or what ? ;) If we "cannot" (why?) remove the label nor establish a new policy, maybe could/should we create a special Category:Fake Quality images or something like a special template or warning to be put on the file page ? ... Or do nothing, as usual ...--Jebulon (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would support removing the QI status. Yann (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 for remove --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed the QI-tag. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the removal of the tag will not help; need to be removed from Commons:Quality images/Subject/People too. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the picture from this category. Nor Wladislaw neither me had the right to do what we did. But we took our responsibilities, as QI old timers. We must be both comdemned together, and I find a little bit funny the idea of sharing a jail cell with him Face-smile.svg...--Jebulon (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you together. Clin -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is solved and your two necks are safe, for now ([3]). I have clarified the rules Face-smile.svg -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
"Let crucify him! Let crucify him !"--Jebulon (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Monty python foot.png --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm Jebulon, not Brian ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand what do you mean, saying "fake quality image." This picture has been considered a picture of the day on Wikimedia Commons for 4 August 2012. And nobody said that it's "fake," despite its author isn't a Commons user. As for me, I'll never nominate my own works for any status, because it seems for me a little bit cheeky kind of behavior, to promote your own production.
p.s. Even more curious is that Mr. Jebulon said nothing against the promotion of the mentioned work, but in this particular case, he has shown an astonishing willingness to strip all titles from the photo. — George Serdechny 18:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing "curious" here, Mr. George Serdechny is just only confusing the QIC rules, and the FPC rules... Authors of QI candidates must be "Commons" users, it is a mandatory. It is not the case for FP candidates. Please read the guidelines...--Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Btw, Pictures Of The Day are chosen only among the Featured Pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
That's rhetorics. Bureaucracy, which has been artificially created in order to complicate life. — George Serdechny 20:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nor rhetorics neither bureaucracy. Consensual Rules. And a good an fair explanation for Mr.George Serdechny comments and remarks. Life is so simple...--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bewertungskriterien[edit]

Ich habe den Eindruck, dass bei der Bewertung der Bilder die Auflösung das Entscheidende ist, eventuell auch noch die Schärfe, aber die Bildgestaltung oder die Bedingungen, unter denen eine Aufnahme entstand, eine untergeordnete Rolle spielen. Ist dieser Eindruck richtig? Und wenn ja, lässt sich an der Gewichtung der Kriterien etwas ändern? Denn es ist schon erstaunlich, dass zum Beispiel ein leicht überbelichtetes Allerweltsfoto eines Autos mit „good Quality“ bewertet, eine historische Rennsportaufnahme, die vor ungefähr einem Jahr auch in einem Buch veröffentlicht wurde und sich mit anderen sehr guten Bildern in diesem Werk messen kann, in den Commons als qualitativ unzureichend eingestuft wird. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dein Eindruck ist richtig und deine historischen Aufnahmen sind besser bei den Valued Images, den Wertvollen Bildern aufgehoben (die sind für Wikipedia wirklich wertvoll!). Das ist hier ganz anders als in der deutschen Wikipedia, wo man versucht alle Aspekte mit der Kategorie Exzellente Bilder abzudecken, hier wird nach QI, FP, VI unterschieden (das gibt auch weniger Diskussionen ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Die Auflösung selbst spielt keine Rolle sofern die Mindestauflösung erfüllt wurde. Ein Bild mit 4 Megapixel kann zudem besser sein als eines mit 14 MP. Auch eine historische Rennsportaufnahme kann durchaus die QI-Kriterien erfüllen. Leider weiß ich nicht um welches Bild es konkret geht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Es geht um das Bild Eifelrennen 1969, BMW Formel 2, Joseph Siffert.jpg. Dieses Foto ist – wie oben schon gesagt – in dem Buch ADAC Eifelrennen, ISBN 978-3-868852-070-5, auf Seite 120 ca. 11 × 15 cm groß abgedruckt und lässt hinsichtlich Wiedergabequalität nichts zu wünschen übrig. Das BMW-Logo neben dem Kopf des Fahrers ist – auch mit einer Lupe betrachtet – einwandfrei scharf. – Aber lassen wir es bei der Negativwertung. Ich weiß jetzt, dass es auch hier genau wie bei KEB keinen Sinn hat, mit historischen Fotos erfolgreich kandidieren zu wollen. Allerdings finde ich es schade. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Derselbe Juror, der „meinen“ Siffert als „too grainy“ und das Foto eines Motorradfahrers als nicht ganz scharf abqualifiziert, bewertet Aveiro March 2012-18.jpg als Qualitätsfoto, obwohl er auch hier die unzureichende Schärfe bemängelt. Ist das nicht merkwürdig? -- Spurzem (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
File:Eifelrennen 1969, BMW Formel 2, Joseph Siffert.jpg ist sicher ein Grenzfall. Ich persönlich würde hier wohl eher pro QI als contra stimmen. Die Körnigkeit eines Films beeinträchtigt die Schärfe übrigens nicht, deswegen kann ein Bild durchaus scharf aber dennoch stark verrauscht sein. Mich stört das Korn eines Films nicht, im Gegenteil ist das sogar viel angenehmer als das "richtige Verrauschen" einer digitalen Spiegelreflex. Dass das Bild in einem Buch abgedruckt wurde ist übrigens als Argument wenig geeignet, weil im Buchdruck durch die geringere Auflösung solche Merkmale wie der Korn kaum ins Gewicht fällt. Wenn Du das nächste mal eine Begründung nicht nachvollziehen kannst stell sie einfach zur Diskussion und dann müssen sich weitere Benutzer äußern. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Wegen der Andeutung zu meinen Bewertungskriterien möchte ich ein Wort dazu sagen. Es ist nicht alles schwarz oder weiß. Es gibt sicher eine Grenze, die zu überwinden ist, um den QI Stempel zu bekommen, und das tut dieses Bild meines Erachtens -in der Originalgroße- nicht. Dieses andere Bild kann in der Tat schärfer sein (z.B. durch eine höhere ISO oder durch dein Einsatz von einem Stativ), ist dennoch über die QI Grenze hinaus. Das ist natürlich meine Meinung, die ich nun durch einen zweiten Review bestätige. Dennoch kannst du gerne das "Decline" gegen "Discuss" ersetzen, um weitere Meinungen zu sammeln.
Bitte, zukünftig lass es mir hier wissen, wenn du etwas an meiner Arbeit im Projekt auszusetzen hast. Danke und Gruß, Poco a poco (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Im Bild von der Imperia finde ich das Korn auch deutlich störender als von dem BMW. Hier würde ich Poco zustimmen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Bezüglich dem Siffert, werde ich mich widerholen, schönes Bild über ein Thema, das mein Herzen laut klopfen lässt, dennoch weit von der Qualität, die man von einem Bild erwartet, um QI zu werden. So sind die Spielregeln und so ist meine Meinung. Ich würde dir auch gerne helfen, die Bildqualität zu verbessern, um es nochmals zu nominieren, aber es gibt leider keine Erfolgschance. Poco a poco (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Schönen Dank, Poco a poco, für Dein ohne Erfolgsaussichten dargestelltes Würde-ich-wenn-Anerbieten. Ich will hier keineswegs um eine Auszeichnung „kämpfen“, die zwar ein bisschen Anerkennung, aber sonst nichts bedeutet. Die Veröffentlichung und hervorragende Wiedergabe des Fotos in einem Buch ist mir mehr wert. Zu Euren Bewertungskriterien dennoch und noch einmal Folgendes: Es wäre wünschenswert, dass auch Bildgestaltung und Entstehungszeit der Fotos in die Bewertung einbezogen würden. Ansonsten: Fiel Euch auf, dass ich Fotos von fahrenden Fahrzeugen lieferte? Vielleicht sollte ich es demnächst besser mit „Standbildern“ versuchen. Da habe ich einige nach meiner Einschätzung sehr gute zu bieten. – Bitte nichts für ungut und viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wo liegt der Maßstab?[edit]

Nachdem ich seit Kurzem auch hier Bilder zur Bewertung und eventuellen Auszeichnung einstelle, wird mir immer weniger verständlich, nach welchen Kriterien die Juroren urteilen. Ich hatte beispielsweise – wie bereits erwähnt – eine historische Rennsportaufnahme vorgestellt, die als „too grainy“ abgelehnt wurde; ein anderes Foto von einem Motorradfahrer galt als „not enough sharp“, weil zugegebenermaßen die Schärfe ab dem Sattel hätte besser sein dürfen. Umso mehr wundere ich mich jetzt allerdings über die positive Bewertung von File:Cape Verde Fogo Chã das Caldeiras school.jpg. Dieses Bild ist – zumindest auf meinem Monitor – zu hell, und Schärfe wie auch Kontrast verdienen allenfalls ein ganz schwaches „ausreichend“, wenn nicht gar „mangelhaft“. Ich frage deshalb, wo der Maßstab liegt bzw. ob es keine Richtlinien gibt, nach denen bewertet werden soll. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Die Richtlinien findest Du hier Commons:Image guidelines --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Da steht ganz am Anfang, die Bilder sollten einen „wow factor“ haben, und gerade der scheint mir kaum einmal berücksichtigt zu werden. Da steht beispielsweise auf einem Foto ein Auto bei einer Oldtimerveranstaltung in der Masse rum und wird ausgezeichnet, der „Mitzieher“ eines Rennwagens, der aus ca. 200 km/h vor einer Kurve abbremst, aber wird als „bad crop“ abqualifiziert, weil ein Teil des riesigen Heckflügels nicht im Bild ist. Schließlich noch eine Frage: Wer darf die Entscheidungen treffen? Gibt es eine Jury, oder könnte ich auch meine Meinung äußern bzw. je nach Einschätzung den grünen oder roten Rahmen einfügen? -- Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Das mit dem wow factor steht unter featured pictures. Das gilt nicht fuer QI. Hier kann jeder abstimmen, und da es ein unkomplizierter schneller Prozess sein soll (der Hauptsaechlich dazu dient technisch total unzulaengliche Bilder auszusieben) sollte man sich nicht zu sehr an moeglichen knappen oder vermeintlichen Fehlentscheidungen hochziehen. Einfach mitmachen! --Dschwen (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

recent QICbot troubles?[edit]

I noticed, that in the last days is QICbot not removing promoted/declined images from CR. --Ivar (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is same here today. Promoted/declined images not removed. -- JDP90 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

QI but uncatagorised[edit]

Blackwater and Chelmer canal.jpg

This image has become a QI but it is not categorized. Quality images guidelines clearly mentions some must have criteria:

1. Copyright status. Quality images have to be uploaded to Commons by copyright holder under a suitable license. Full license requirements are at Commons:Licensing.
2. Quality images must:
be categorized,
have meaningful title and description. This should include the scientific names for minerals and taxa naming for organisms (See Commons:Language policy).
be neutral in their presentation of the image.
3. No advertisements, signatures, or other watermarks in image. Copyright/authorship information of all images should be located on the image's description page and should not interfere with content of the image.

Images must be categorized prior being a QI as guideline mentions. -- JDP90 (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Same as for the non-wikimedian medias, but maybe could we be more lenient, and categorize "after" promotion in this case ? But sure, we all must be more careful in QI promotions...--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done by me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Welcome and warning message left on the user's talk page.--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)