Commons talk:Quality images candidates

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

Removal of declined nominations, using an incomplete summary[edit]

I think what Scotch Mist does here is quite problematic. Look at these three recent edits (however I'm sure there were more of similar kind) [1] [2] [3]. First of all, it is a bad practice to remove own nominations declined by other users entirely, instead of letting the bot archive them. (Yes, Scotch Mist changed the status to "Withdrawn" prior to that action, but this doesn't change anything on the issue, IMO.) When a nomination is not archived, one cannot see in case of a possible new nomination in future, if the photo was not already declined. For transparency reasons, declined nominations should be archived usual way. Always. The second thing are obviously misleading summaries ("Promoted 3 QI images" etc.). Because, not only some other nominations were promoted, but also own nominations removed. This is also bad for transparency and most people, when seeing such summaries, may think that the edits are alright (only promotion, nothing else), although they aren't. So, given all that, I think the actions by Scotch Mist are highly problematic, if not disruptive. Thanks. --A.Savin 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, that's bad practice. Nominatios should only be removed by the bot, regardless of whether they were declined or withdrawn. --Code (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if my actions have caused problems here due to my apparent ignorance of how the 'withdrawal process' that I have witnessed of others has appeared to function. It should be stated from the outset that I have not re-nominated any previously declined/withdrawn images and generally when I have tagged an image as withdrawn this has been noted in the summary (although admittedly recently when I have simultaneously promoted images I have kept my summary short as often others have reviewed the same images in the meantime). Perhaps there should be a clear statement on the QI Candidates pages along the lines of (assuming I have now assessed the situation correctly): "A nominated image may be withdrawn at any time prior to review and within the eight day period prior to archive providing that the image has not already been declined or proposed for consensual review. A nominated image should not be removed from the QI Candidate List for a minimum period of two days after it is tagged Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination for withdrawal to enable further comment as appropriate." --SM1 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a clearer statement might be: "A nominated image may be tagged for withdrawal (Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination) within the eight day review period prior to archive providing that the image has not already been declined or proposed for consensual review. An image tagged for withdrawal should not be removed from the QI Candidate List for a minimum period of two days after it has been tagged to enable further comment as appropriate." Agree that it is desirable to maximize transparency --SM1 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

PS For the sake of accuracy the word 'false' should perhaps be replaced by 'incomplete' in the title of this thread and it should be noted that the first 'example' provided above was not an image that was previously declined but an image on which a comment was made in review to which a question was posed but as no answer was received I considered it best to simply withdraw the image. With regard to incomplete comments while I generally attempt to be as informative as possible in this regard it is perhaps another area where some more formal advice might be helpful. --SM1 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC) ✓ Done Suggested title change not contested over period of three weeks. --SM1 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

♦ Help needed[edit]

Everybody should have a look on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Diese Seite ist in der Vergangenheit mehrfach bis zur völligen Unbenutzbarkeit vollgelaufen und die ganze Verwaltungsarbeit wurde in der Masse immer nur von zwei, drei Leuten erledigt. Zuletzt im Wesentlichen durch Hubertl (der noch mehr gemacht hat) und nur noch wenig von mir, wobei ich persönlich eigentlich immer nur gelegentlich vorn ein selektiertes Bild vorstelle, aber in der Vergangenheit schon hunderte umgeschaufelt habe. Nun hat Hubertl seit kurzem die Sortierarbeit eingestellt (was kein Vorwurf sein soll, es gibt immer gute Gründe, Nichtbeteiligung aller anderen QIC-Beteiligten könnte ich z.B. sehr gut verstehen) und die Seite läuft erneut in rasantem Tempo voll. Ich sehe für die Zukunft nur drei Handlungsperspektiven:
a) Jeder, der auf der Vorderseite Bapperl eingesammelt hat, sortiert seinen Kram nach dem Botlauf selber in passende Unterseiten um.
b) Die Seite wird aufgegeben, archiviert und der Bot wird so umgebaut, daß er halt nichts mehr dort hineinschiebt.
c) Man ändert nichts, alle ignorieren die Seite komplett, bis jeder Browser beim Aufruf platzt.
Das mag lästig klingen, aber die Sache mit der Selbstregulierung und dem Wikiprinzip funktioniert hier offensichtlich nicht (mehr). --Smial (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Bitte Lösung b). Ich halte diese Kategorienseiten einfach nicht für sinnvoll und ich glaube auch nicht, dass irgendjemand einen Nutzen davon hat. --Code (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that very few people are aware of what happens in the background. Maybe there should be a re-assessment of the QI process with the submitter selecting the category from a fixed list. This list woudl be identical to the target list of categories, but with the text "_candidate" afixed to it. The BOT which processes the image will look for that text and transfer it to the target category, removing the manual part of the work from volunteers. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
How much times I already stated this? These messy QI galleries should be deleted. Instead, QI categories (by country, by subject) should be used and maintained much more actively. I really don't understand why most of QI nominators ignore that. Whereas me, XRay, Halavar, Code and some very few other users do, the big rest (including not only unexperienced newbees but also some longstanding QI nominators like Ermell, Charlesjsharp, The Photographer, or Martin Falbisoner) categorize their QI's in user categories like "Quality images by xxx" but never to QI by country, by city, or by subject. Can they tell me why not? And yes, there should be a bot solution for that. There should be something like Martinvl suggested above — not for that obsolete galleries, but for categories. Nominating a picture only with a category, and the bot adds the QI seal AND the category to the picture. --A.Savin 16:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I don't know why you are accusing me. When I upload an image I put it into a species gallery and a location category such as Category:Birds of Neverneverland. I never been asked to add a gallery to Category:Quality images of Neverneverland. It is not mentioned, as far as I can see, in the QI guidelines, so why do you start such an offensive action? It does not seem warranted. If you wish to change the QI process, then do so, but otherwise please don't mention me as someone who doesn't do thinngs properly. Charles (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Offensive? Wow, just wow. --A.Savin 23:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
+1 Please b) and every day with a QI promotion a hint to put the QI images into QI categories by subject and by city/country. (Mein Englisch. :-( Einfach mit jeder Benachrichtigung auf der Diskussionsseite auch mal ein klarer Hinweis, die Bilder auch in passende QI-Kategorien einzusortieren.) --XRay talk 19:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
b! And sorry, I really wasn't aware of the mess I helped create here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Martinvl your suggestion would be similar to FPC? Good idea. --Smial (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Smial: - Yes (I hadn't realised that origianlly). If the basic software is already there and tested, there should be no problem in reusing it. Martinvl (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What to do next? I'm not very familar with commons proceedings in such cases. Can we simply ask Dschwen to rewrite the bot? Do we need a poll before? --Smial (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Still the same procedure as every year. Nothing happens. A lot of images waiting for categorization - sorry, galleries. No hint at the discussion pages with the promoted photographs. Most of the nominators doesn't know what's to do after promotion. It's sad. --XRay talk 07:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Dschwen is the only one who could do anything about it and he has been long time not interested in QI. Maybe there should be a possibility of "hostile takeover" of a bot in such cases. ;) --A.Savin 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is asking the wrong question and making unreasonable demands of users. Our category system is broken and unsuitable for images. Nobody else uses categories for images like on Commons. The intersection of categories should be done by software at query time, not by photographers wasting their precious time on earth duplicating existing database information in endless ways. We spend enough time considering if an image is of a person, an event, a location, taken on a date, by a photographer, etc, without also adding "Quality images of people", "Quality images of festivals", "Quality images in Paris", "Quality images by Colin", and "Quality images taken at 21:15 on the second Saturday in June 2016 with a waxing crescent moon". Add these categories if you find them useful, but please don't expect anyone else to share the enthusiasm for them. -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just curious: how would it be possible to add categories "by software at query time" with the same result as when they have been added by a human user in a correct way? --A.Savin 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking for the duplicate info to be added as a category. We have category "Quality image" and we have an infinity of other categories one can insterset with this such as "London Transport buses" to get "Quality images of London Transport buses" at query time. If one adds that category by hand, this breaks the rules of database design where duplication is discouraged as it is both unnecessary and also leads to inconsistencies. Should someone later correct the category of an image to "Clydeside Scottish Routemasters" then there's no issue with the "Quality images of London Transport buses" category disagreeing with that. It's pretty mad that we have all these bizarre deeply nested categories that just make it hard to maintain or to find anything (like hiding inside "London Buses bus V3 (A103 SUU)"). -- Colin (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Mediawiki is becoming obsolete software. WMF executives are continuously searching for ways to drive mediawiki in a leaner, strategic and more optimized direction, however without any real contact with the community. This mediawiki problem is not only consumes WMF staffing, it also drains scarce users for category maintenance and wasting time in bureaucratic contributions to a dangerous ripple effect of revenue leakage across community operations. Mediawiki was written many years ago and not designed for the new technologies like IA and Ajax. wikimedia commons community has multiple pages open on their browser to access categories and complete daily a rudimentary categorization task. Also, mediawiki is not “user” configurable, some improvements in usability and common activities require programming by outside using "add-ons" or plugins from community users or some wmf internal IT people. Each year Jimmy is still asking for a annual maintenance fees (Which is basically spent on maintenance stuff with no real impact on the software). Also, mediawiki updates are not done w ith the approval of the community, it is usually an automatic process expensive and disruptive (Like visual editor and wikipedia media viewer). --The Photographer 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Illustrating Women, Filling the Gaps[edit]

Hi, This is a new project which also concerns COM:QI. Please help fill in Category:Quality images of women. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Nominations[edit]

Over the last 7 weeks or so, I'm still relatively new. Have met the "regulars" and the "newcomers". In this time, I have noticed a few things, which may have become a "normal process" for the "regulars" who help in assessing each image that gets added to the Quality Image Assessment page. In most cases, the "regulars", yes in most cases ..... get an "automatic pass" to have their image to QI. Even though the image may be of any importance. It could be best done at "Valuable Image"? Yes, I admit I don’t go around "happy snapping" everything I see around me. Just to get my image to be promoted to QI. For me, it takes days for me to think up what would be a good image for me? Where could I go? What could it be of?

As I said "most cases" regulars, get an "automatic pass". Today, I see about 4 done by the same person and they have somewhere 3,500 to 4,500 QI images. I'll either be in an Insane Asylum permanently or dead before I reach that many ..... At the rate, I am going! A good sign for me to not feel so bad, is that a "regular" and his 2 of his images has been rejected. Which has made me feel relieved. Because it’s finally and about time a regular feels what it is like when no matter how much work (thought goes into it and weeks of patience, like me is) as I don’t submit many. This person should realise they should get their head out of the clouds and come back to earth.

Another thing, I don't understand is when an image gets assessed. No two people can agree on certain outcomes. Person 1, may say blurry and CA. While Person 2, may say not straight and the verticals needs to be done. Then when the person who submitted it, can't fix what Person 2 said, then they are stuffed, needing help. I can keep going on with this. Adamdaley 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it is not an easy task, right. I was "new" for a lot of months. I've learned to fix all the issues, for example with Adobe Lightroom. Each reviewer has another focus to the issues. Please have a look to the reasons of the issues and then try to fix it. There are always a lot of hints in the World Wide Web. So your photographs will become QI. But please don't stop if your images are technical without issues. Today I'll try some special kind of photography but sometimes they did not become QI. It is a kind of progression when QI becomes boring. It is not my goal to take always technical perfect photographs. But be sure that most of the people will help you to take good photographs. Good luck and always good light. --XRay talk 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Regulars know what will pass, and what won't. So they don't submit images which have very little change to get through. At least that's what I do. That's probably why they have a higher success rate. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand some former regulars have left because of sometimes absurdly high requirements and also because of surprisingly strange justifications. --Smial (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Making things easier[edit]

Time and time again, I read questions from new QIC contributors about things, photography terms, that are used in reviews. A long time ago, I was one of those who had no idea what "CA" meant. The old regulars are so used to this vocabulary they have probably forgot how confusing it could be to not know that "photo language". This glitch in communication is frustrating, time-consuming and unnecessary. We have a page that was started long ago but it is still very, very incomplete: Commons:Photography terms. I propose that we make an effort - a drive, to fix this page and stock it up with all the terms used at QIC and then some. When the page is up to par, I propose that we put a link to it on top of the Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list somewhere just above the "Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day." orange bar. That way reviewers can simply refer to this list for explanations instead of having long tutorials in the reviews or on talk pages, The page should also have a good short-cut link that is easy to use.

Some of the explanations that are sorely missing are CA, WB, crop, HDR, stacking, fringing, tilt, perspective correction, raw, histogram, CCW, CW, jpeg artifacts, compression artifacts, noise, bokeh, blown, burned out, post processing, and many more. The explanations should be short, concise and in a simple language, like the guideline on the page says: Please try and write in basic English: most users are not Native English speakers, nor are they photographers. The explanation should also link to Wikipedia articles for further explanation. Thoughts? --cart-Talk 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For me, I knew nothing of photography language, example "CA". I'd say finish that page with image examples and articles. Adamdaley 00:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdaley (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with --~~~~. --XRay talk 06:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
A very good idea. I proposed a dictionary of abbreviations a long time ago too. (I had the same problems like Adamdaley in the beginning too.) But the page Commons:Photography terms is better. I'll try to help, but my English is not good enough. May be a translation in other languages may be a solution too. --XRay talk 06:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
XRay, any help is good help! :) At English Wikipedia I often work with fixing and sorting out texts by German, French or Spanish editors, so if you just provide what facts you can even in not so good English, I will fix the language for you. The same goes for contributions from other users. After we have a full, working page, we can look at translating it too. --cart-Talk 08:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


We are off to a good start with the list as some of our photographers has turned out to be brilliant at explaining things as well. Face-smile.svg There is now also the start of a list of If you know some abbr that should be in that list, please just add it. It may result in a new section below, which is great. We are also in need of links to good online external sites with photography terms and tutorials. If you know any, please add them to External links. Don't worry about knowing how to spell or formatting, we'll fix that for you. --cart-Talk 10:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Same or very similar pictures[edit]

17-02-15-Lietadlá Ministerstva vnútra slovenské republiky-RR2 7932.jpg
17-02-15-Lietadlá Ministerstva vnútra slovenské republiky-RR2 7931.jpg

First of all, I am not specifically about my own photos but about a general clarification. How do we deal with such cases at QIC? What are the cases?

  1. Trimming another photo without any other modification
  2. Same photo, different development / color / HDR ...
  3. Very similar, almost identical photo

Sorry for Google translation. --Ralf Roleček 19:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A crop or different development of the same picture is not IMO something we should be encouraging. Very similar photos is OK. I'd probably say that so long as they're not all nominated at the same time though... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)