Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15

Closing CR

Have I missed a discussion or a consent regarding setting the QI-Result-Template? Has it become customary not to sign the template when setting it? -- Smial (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivisions to "People"

Hi there,
since nobody seem to answer there I will try here again:

Mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of new pictures arriving from the concert photography in the last weeks and hopefully also for the next months and due to the fact that I get a script error every time I open Commons:Quality_images/Subject/People I would like to propose to install at least three subdivions for the people category of QI:

  1. Portraits in Concert photography
  2. Portraits in Sports photography
  3. Other Portrait

What do you think about this? Are there any problems with this kind of subdivisions and if not not how would it be proceeded? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zensur

Seit wann gibt es hier Zensur und wer ist berechtigt Zensur zu üben? Siehe den Edit von Mattbuck, heute 19:17 Uhr. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Äh, hat er doch sogleich selber revertiert und sich entschuldigt. -- Smial (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wo? Ich hatte nur gesehen, dass es irgendwann irgendjemand revertiert haben musste. Da er es tatsächlich selbst war, ist die Sache in Ordnung. Aber anscheinend saß es doch in ihm drin, endlich mal dem Spurzem eins draufzugeben. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In der Zusammenfassung seines ersten Edits steht „(Reverted edits by Spurzem (talk) to last revision by Berthold Werner)“. Die Meldung erscheint bei einem Revert. Er hat also nicht bewußt Text von dir gelöscht, sondern in der Versionsgeschichte den Revert-Link getroffen. Ist mir auch schon passiert, ist peinlich, aber kein Grund, eine böse Absicht zu unterstellen. --Kreuzschnabel 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediocre Quality Images

This short excerpt from the CR on File:Zillebeke (3).JPG illustrates perfectly what I’m feeling about QIC:

  •  Support with all due respect, @Kreuzschnabel: , but these artifacts are acceptable für QI. At least for me. Crucify me now for that! ;-) --Hubertl 22:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    •  Comment Something like that wasn’t considered acceptable when I joined QIC back in 2012. Obviously, the quality of digital photography has deteriorated significantly in the meantime. My fault not to notice. --Kreuzschnabel 08:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There were times when it was not possible for such a nomination to stand on CR status nearly uncommented for days (and this one is about to pass soon). No more interest to participate in CR from all the regulars I used to see here? --Kreuzschnabel 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should never pass QI. I'm not on my usual monitors, so can't do a proper review, but just looking at that noise/artifaction... -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI promoted twice

I just got a notification that File:2015 Chinese New Year Fashion Show, Sudirman Street, Yogyakarta, 2015-02-15 02.jpg was promoted to QI. Nice to know... except that it had already been promoted on 20 February 2015 as well (QIC archives; my talk page archives). I look into it, and it turns out the file was nominated by Kadellar (archive here), as the QI bot had never tagged the image previously. My question: is there a way to prevent such double nominations from happening? Maybe a failsafe for the bot, in case it malfunctions or edit conflicts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Crisco 1492, now at least it is really promoted. I don't know why the bot failed. I'm going to nominate this picture now at FPC. --Kadellar (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorization of images not made by Wikimedians

Hi,

Those files were promoted as QI :

Does vectorization / derivative work of images not made by Wikimedians meet the QI guidelines ?

Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, maybe, it's not trivial to get this right. I recall your last two examples, there were several rounds of fix invalid SVG, get a smaller embedded raster image, try VI after QI timeout, and QI renomination—some delays caused by me. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing QI-Label for three non-Commoner images

There are several images, where the QI promotions should be removed:

The nominator of the photos is Daniel Holý. Obviously, he uploaded the work of the photographer Viktor Zerzán with OTRS permission. Though this is a correct procedure regarding the copyright status in Commons, it is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC, as the photographer is not a Commoner.

I will remove the labels after 24 hours, if no proof of eligibility will be submitted. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing research. I think we should as well say thanks to Daniel Holý for his efforts and apologize for not noticing earlier. --Kreuzschnabel 11:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Removed --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after decline

At the moment there are a lot of nominations pending again which have previously been declined. See, for example:

Do we have any rules about this? I consider this as bad behaviour. In my opinion it's disrespectful in some way because it means that the nominator doesn't care about what the reviewers said before. I think if somebody believes that his nomination was declined unjustifiably he can move it to CR or simply accept the decision. Renomination without improving the picture should not be allowed, I think. --Code (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends how long it's been, and whether it was a contentious decline or not. I've renominated declined images where I think the decline reason was wrong, and it's been a year or more since decline. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was, that if it is a complete rework from scratch which eliminates all former, resolvable issues, it could be ok. However, as we already have a CR procedure, it is still kind of smelly and I feel that opening this gate will end up in a renomination loop. So for the sake of clear rules, I opt for a strict denial of renominations after a decline. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now User:Ailura is trying to force a previously declined image against my explicit advise to wait for a discussion and decision. This is indeed extremly disrespectful ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The picture i nominated was declined more than two years ago without discussion and without technical reason, so i wanted to catch up on the cr discussion. I also uploaded a new version. As it was declined before, i don't think one vote should be enough anyway. Thank you for your advice, but (as mattbuck said above) other persons renominated pictures before and i don't want to redraw only because of your personal opinion on that. Nobody gets hurt if two people have a look at the same image. --Ailura (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination of a reworked version one year (or more) later should be allowed. -- Smial (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an opinion: I think there are two main topics mixed here. The first on the question if an image was reworked after decline (then it sure may be possible to re-nominate) and the second on re-nomination of pictures that were declined without valid technical reasons given. I think the latter one is problematic because it is based sometimes only on aesthetics of the reviewer (I remember a decline of a car photo of myself only because the reviewer didn't like the modern applications on the old car - I accepted but did not understand ...). I think in this case at least a discussion should be possible. Not possible should be a re-nomination of an image critizised with valid technical points without reworking like in the recent pic of File:KonzertDobson.jpg. Some cents -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that re-nominations should be allowed if the reasons that lead to the decline have been corrected. In my opinion this should be the only case in which we can allow a re-nomination. Is there a consensus in the community to add this to the rules? @Cccefalon: could you live with that solution? --Code (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what Achim said and also not my opinion. So this is no consensus. --Ailura (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And will you be so kind to tell us what your opinion is? And what Achim in your eyes really wanted to say? --Code (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my eyes, Achim said that a discussion should be possible, if pictures were declined without technical reasons.--Ailura (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to any consensus. For facilitating the necessary decisions, such a renomination has to be tagged with "(renominated)". However, I feel that we should add a one-year ban on renomination to avoid, that it will be abused as a court of appeal. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging renominated pictures definitely makes sense. In my opinion, one declining vote can not be enough for blocking a picture (but the picture then probably would have to go into CR). If there was a decision in a review process (and if the uploader was aware of that), it's a different situation. --Ailura (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if it's a reworking that actually addresses the reason for the decline, then renomination is perfectly fine (a note should be included that it is a renomination). If the image is not reworked, then the nominator should be able to renominate it directly to CR, with the previous oppose vote intact (mirroring what would happen if the nominator had caught the decline within 48 hours and sent it to CR). CR declines should not be appealable. -- King of 06:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally contrary I never proposed a photo declined and never will. --LivioAndronico talk 08:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution and easy taken photographs

Sorry for the additionaly answer to the reviews of File:Recke, St.-Dionysius-Kirche -- 2014 -- 9705 -- Ausschnitt.jpg in german, my knowledge of the english language isn't good enough for this kind of comment: Irgendwie möchte ich das so nicht stehen lassen, ganz unabhängig davon, dass ich die Kritik und das Contra natürlich einsehe. Ich möchte aber doch anhand des Bilds für ein wenig Verständnis für die Fotografinnen und Fotografen werben, die hier Luftaufnahmen nominieren - auch im Hinblick auf die Regel "reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily". Das Bild ist ein Ausschnitt von File:Recke, St.-Dionysius-Kirche -- 2014 -- 9705.jpg und schon auf der größtmöglichen Auflösung. Zugegeben, das ist recht wenig. Was mich irritiert ist der Wunsch oder die Regel, dass mehr Auflösung erwartet wird, wenn dies quasi leicht zu bewerkstelligen wäre. Meine Erfahrung bei den Fotoflügen für Wikipedia war, dass keine Aufnahme wirklich leicht zu machen war. Allein das unruhige Flugzeug, das offene Fenster, das große Gebiet, die hohe Fluggeschwindigkeit und der Dunst in der Luft setzen Grenzen. (Ich könnte mir so im Nachhinein auch bessere Rahmenbedingungen vorstellen.) Der Ausschnitt hier wurde mit 1/1.250 s bei einer Brennweite von 135 mm belichtet. Das war das Maximum meines Zooms. (Spätere Flüge zeigten, dass schon 135 mm grenzwertig sind, bei 200 mm ging auch mit noch kürzerer Belichtungszeit nicht mehr viel.) Die Erfahrung aus den Flügen zeigt, dass diese Belichtungszeit durchaus lang ist, wohl auch ein Grund für die Unschärfe. Bei diesem Bild kommt nachteilig noch hinzu, dass das Motiv geschätzt 1,5 bis 2 Kilometer entfernt war. Seht es mir bitte nach, dass ich diesen Umstand hier zumindest begründen wollte. Dass es zu unscharf ist, ist als Grund für ein Contra nachzuvollziehen und einzusehen. Es ist wohl bei meiner Auswahl mit hineingerutscht. Sorry dafür. Die Auflösung allein empfinde ich nicht ausreichend als Ablehnungsgrund. Bei Aufnahmen, die man wirklich vergleichsweise ohne größere Schwierigkeiten anfertigen kann, ist die Forderung nach einem "Mehr" jedoch durchaus berechtigt. --XRay talk 16:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: Achieving high quality in aerial photography is a hell of a lot more difficult than it would be from a fixed platform at the same position. Imagine riding a plate compactor mounted on a mechanical bull mounted on a Ferrari going at full speed ;-) That's of course wildly exaggerated, but tune it down to about 10% and it's about what you can expect – still bad enough. Also, soil moisture is a BIG issue for sharpness. It's crazy, basic rules of thumb that work fine on the ground seem to change dramatically up there, so that's really something that should be taken into consideration. --El Grafo (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) PS: For a helicopter, remove the Ferrari but double the plate compactor. For a glider, remove the plate compactor but double the mechanical bull. For a hot air balloon, replace all of the three by a litter and tell the carriers to go wherever they'd like to.[reply]
Or very short: Easy is relative. --XRay talk 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
…and QIC is a lottery. The background info for this extracted image is only noted on the original, easy to miss in a review unless you mentioned it explicitly. Nothing against the small photo, but after I've looked at both I like your original better, there are more interesting details triggering my imagination. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to say goodbye

I haven’t felt well in QI for some time now. It’s not for the undiscerning reviewers promoting any nomination as long as there’s something visible in it. It’s rather because the more serious regulars who used to be here don’t stand together IMHO to keep standards up. Some nominations of clearly below-threshold pictures have passed or nearly passed CR recently because no one opposed.

Then, I wonder why hardly anyone of the regulars has been voting for my nomination which has been on CR for almost three weeks now. Only answer I can think of is that it’s really much worse than I think it is but nobody wants to tell me so, so I’d expect my reviews to be similar off standards here.

Sorry to say the green seal is no longer marking an image of high quality for me. It may as well mark an image taken in the street the reviewer lives in, or of some place and/or by an author the reviewer is fond of, however its visual quality may be. --Kreuzschnabel 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auf Widersehen --LivioAndronico talk 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"WiEdersehen". Schade. But I agree and understand.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember :-/ There are many different reasons to leave, I know that well. Maybe a break can help. -- Smial (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, I appreciate your advice. To see you again later--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Kreuzschnabel, vielleicht warst Du manchmal ein bisschen zu kritisch. Trotzdem: Bleib nicht zu lange weg; Du fehlst. Herzliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's wrong with your photo. Between "bandwidth at modem speed", when I can't even load the QIC page, and some obscure FPXs (+guess what else) I didn't look at any QI/FP candidates or CRs for weeks, sorry.:-(Be..anyone (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I usually avoid the recent nominations and clean out the old ones when I do my reviews. Not everyone is comfortable reviewing images that may be borderline which is why they fail to be reviewed in a timely manner. However, I've recently taken a hiatus from QIC, so that might be contributing as well. Losing a reviewer or two makes a difference in review speed. -- Ram-Man 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Edit request}} This page is protected while posting this message. Please replace File:Clay minoan model -restored- of a house, 2700 BCE.jpg with File:Clay minoan model -restored- of a house, 1600 BCE.jpg because File renamed: File renaming criterion #1: Prośba przesyłającego plikwrong date Thank you. Message by MediaWiki:Gadget-GlobalReplace.js -- Wieralee (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page

Can someone please explain why the Project Page is protected at the moment (no edits are possible), yet some nominators are still posting QI candidates. Thank you. --Charles (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates are transcluded from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, which is not protected. Hence, nominating, voting, etc. still works as usual. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Charles (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Since I can't renominate my three current nominations due to the 4-megapixel rule, can someone else please review them before they get removed? --Jakob (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution in QI