Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 13

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

Can videos be nominated as Quality images?

I´m just wondering, because videos are allowed to be nominated on FP, but I have never seen a video at QI. --Hubertl 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some already - watch Quality images by type -> Animated.--Isiwal (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn´t know. --Hubertl 20:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The place where the butterfly photo was taken

We should write in the guidelines that images of animals or plants must have informations in the file description section about the place where the photo was taken, and also the relevant corresponding categories. This can be useful for editors who want write articles and for experts. I suggest to add something like that (it's not an official proposing):

Concerning the images of animals, plants or that relate to the living world:
The file description must have the most accurate possible information on the location where the photo was taken, even the geolocation if possible. This is so that experts can identify species or subspecies represented. This information may also be useful for people trying to illustrate an article about the flora and fauna of a specific location.

-- Christian Ferrer 09:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is already part of the guideline. See Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements #3: "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." See Commons:Categories; especially, 1. Types of reflected relations: a.en:Hyponymy and hypernymy eg: biological taxonomy b. en:Meronymy eg: geographical division 2. Categorization tips: a. what? / whom? eg: biological taxonomy b. where? eg: geographical division.
If this is difficult to understand I support to add what Christian suggested. Jee 10:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a fact that on only one day QI archive, we can find approximatively 15 QI of animals or insects. On this 15 images only 8 have a category for the place. And at least 4 images (1, 2, 3, 4) have not a single information (description, geotag nor category) on the place where the photo was taken. And it is only one day archive. IMO these images should not be QI, and that should be writen in the QI guidelines because the Commons policies are apparently not enough. The informations concerning these images are not enough accurate for a QI promotion IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 13:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Christian. --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not too much expected, that we have a geo localisation and a geo category with the image. I am geotagging 99% of my images (sometimes it is not favourable, e.g. if I worked in the studio) and it is not a big effort to retrieve the location from wikimapia or similar maps. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geo codes and place name in description are human readable; but not much helpful for sorting and for automated tools. For that purpose, we need either categories or tags. Mediawiki still uses categories; some other sites like Flickr uses tags. Tags may more useful; but as far as mediawiki is not upgraded, we need categories. (Moreover, it will save time of other categorisers who add cats like "Quality images of <location>".) Jee 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that we are talking about categories :) However, geo locations are also helpful to determine, where the species was found. This cannot be done by a category; see this file as an example, what I expect in geolocalisation and categorizing. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; geo codes are very useful. We made it compulsory (except for endangered species where revealing location may harmful) in COM:VI. I think we need same guideline for QI and FP too. :) Jee 15:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 In september, after the (european) summer holidays, we could do a series of proposals for to change a little the guideline regarding the subject that concerns us here. @Jkadavoor: When you talk about COM:VI, you mean geo codes compulsory for all images, not only for animals and plants? -- Christian Ferrer 18:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Commons:Valued image criteria #5: "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so. Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots, unknown locations, illustrations, diagrams, charts and maps, situations where the publishing of a location might be prejudicial (for example, privacy concerns, endangered species). Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field." For me geocode is preferred whenever possible. Jee 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm seeing some files categorized as quality images, but I don't see evidence of going through the nomination process. I'm not familiar with this process, so am I missing something, or should they not be categorized this way? Some examples:

These appear to have been created with Category:Quality images by country. I diffused them later, before realizing that there might be an issue. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being wary and removing the QI tag. The Category:Quality images by country indeed is only applicable, if an image underwent the QIC process. It seems, that already at the time of upload added the QI-tag. It might be, that the user used the file template of someone else and was not aware, what the QI tag is about. Well, assume good faith and you can approach the users on their talk page. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about organizing Consensual review

The consensual review sections are usually pretty disorganized, with people clearly supporting or opposing without an explicit support / oppose template. It's OK if I add these templates upon other users opinionss? I did that for File:Dreifelder_Weiher_im_Frühling.JPG and File:Wuppertal_-_Engels-Haus_02_ies.jpg. I am not asking for this organization to be made into official guidelines, just if anyone minds if I do it, or whether I am crossing a line. Thanks! --Xicotencatl (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xicotencatl, as for me, I think you are right. As an old regular in these pages, it happens that I add by myself the  Support or the  Oppose in the Consensual Review section, in order to be clear for following reviewers. So did I, by the way, for my own last picture send in CR. Just be careful not to change a simple comment in a vote "pro" or "contra". If any doubt, one can ask the reviewer about his intention. Cheers and have fun here !--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed QI candidates

Ich verstehe die Kategorie Category:Unassessed QI candidates nicht ganz... dort sollen Bilder sein, die durch das Bewertungssystem gerauscht sind. Nun sind dort aber hunderte (gefühlte) QI dort kategoriesiert - das widerspricht sich. Ich vermute die sind ein zweites mal nominiert worden. Nun wenn die beim zweiten Mal aber ein QI-Bapperl bekommen haben muss doch die Kategorie Category:Unassessed QI candidates entfernt werden. Oder sehe ich das falsch? --Atamari (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Da hast du wohl recht. Ich habe das schon mal manuell gemacht, finde das aber nicht sinnvoll. Schön wäre es, wenn der Bot das könnte. (Im Grunde finde ich die Kategorie allerdings unnötig. Wer nimmt sich die vielen Bilder denn wieder vor? Ich lösche die Kategorie bei meinen Bildern immer.)--XRay talk 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Die Kategorie kann bleiben, es wäre aber sinnvoll dem User:QICbot (@Dschwen: hier ein mal ein kleines "ping") beizubringen beim Einfügen des QI-Bausteins auf die Kat zu prüfen und gegebenfalls zu entfernen. --Atamari (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. Gute Idee! :-) --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die Verbesserung. In einem zweiten Schritt die Bereinigung der vorhandenen Bilder. Also aktueller Bestand mit QI-Bilder prüfen, ob dort nicht "Unassessed QI candidates " dabei sind. --Atamari (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Dschwen (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...Et en français, ça donne quoi ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voila! --Dschwen (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The declined images should be removed from Category:Unassessed QI candidates too.--XRay talk 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something strange happens in CR

After sending two smartphone photos of User:Tulsi Bhagat to CR, I observed, that two persons with the same family name and obviously same nepalese nationality appeared on the scene which never had uploaded photos but now vervently supporting the photos. Please have a look at the situation. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against the rules for now, and not big damage, for now. To be continued...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it is not against the actual rules. But as this showing up of friends has a bad taste, I can only hope, that the regulars here have a look on the image and that finally, an impartial review prevails. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
en:WP:FAMILY is relevant here. "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." It seems all users are from Nepali Wikimedia. At the same time, it is important note to bite newbies. I'll make a friendly note on his talk page. Hope they will understand. Jee 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"an accurate description"

Hi everybody,

as a newbie here at the QI-page I have been stumbling a many times across pictures who have been promoted though their description is in the best case very basic, often details of vast areas whose description is the area name only. It might be a bush with the description "Central Park, NYC" or the hand of a sculpture described as "Tuileries, Paris". As the criterias ask for "an accurate description" I admit that I am often tempted to decline such candidates, because they are not helpful but I am hesitating as I do not want to start arguments as a newbie. Please advice. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Denis Barthel: . "An accurate description" means: "the description must be as precise as possible". The two examples you provide deserve a "decline" IMO. Everything which can be described must (not should) be described. It is the same for the categorization. But of course, as usual, even if I'm very involved in this rule, some fellows here thinks (wrongly) that QIC is just a "photo/image contest", which it is absolutely not... Many examples of these disagreements in reviews... Sorry for answering so lateley.--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See this somewhat related recent discussion too. But as Jeb said, not many cares. :( Jee 16:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality images community

The Quality images community is a non kind community, IMO. What is "Revenge I think."? I will not participate any more. Thank you! C T Johansson (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked one of the photos, where you found quality issues from scratch. You can review again in the Consensual Review section, if the found issues are resolved properly. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Start slowly! It needs some time to get into this system. Everyone is welcome. You only have a struggle with one person - and I asure you, it´s nothing personally! --Hubertl 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "community" at all, I would say. I don't understand the meaning of this word and concept...--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean with community is: I scratch your back and you scratch mine. I don't like that at all! @Hubertl, thanks for the advise :) --C T Johansson (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@C T Johansson: The situation is not so harsh. I have very good friends in real life, that I found here. About photos and decline, don't worry, and have a look to the CR. If your photo is really good, it will be promoted at the end of the process, because other reviewers will help. Try to remain calm, and never revenge, it is useless and counter productive (as an old regular here, I know what I'm talking about !) And never forget that "Commons" is just a hobby. Be sure you will find very good and helpful fellows among us. Remain patient and don't give up. You are welcome here.--Jebulon (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for bad english! Normally a decline no is a private reason against you (or me), everybody (so i think) is blind with the own pictures. Normally are the declines justified and i think: "true, really" ;) Yes, it's a hobby and you are welcome here. --Ralf Roleček 18:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
C T Johansson, the QI process is a kind of School of Perception. I never learned so much in such a short time about my own wrong perception of my work as here. QI tought me: How will the picture look like, BEFORE I press the shutter release. This is more important than anything else. Don´t think so much about, what you will capture, think about the possible problems when you are sitting at home, trying to make the best during postprocessing. QI will change your way of work, and this beside all creative and artistic reflections. You have a really good equipment (I hope, also a good, calibrated monitor, not just a notebook display), in general you are doing everything right. What the colleages are doing here, is just improving your existing skills, giving some suggestions, how to make it better. This, regarding your personal level. This all is our personal benefit, that we underestimate sometimes. In fakt, if somebody - as Hockei does - is interested in similar kind of motifs, even when he is specialized in insects, it is in fakt a very similar situation. You should try to benefit from this joint work and in addition try to pass even your own knowledge to others. --Hubertl 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of drowned areas?

Hi, please excuse my silly question. But I'm trying to understand the meaning of drowned areas. RTFM did not work. As far as I assume, a drowned area is an image area consisting mainly of black pixels. It can be seen in the histogram, when it is leaning to the left (there is a peak at 0). The dynamic range of the camera was folded to the much less dynamic range of the jpg, which caused low key pixels to be folded to black. Detail information is lost and cannot be recovered (except from maybe the raw image). Googling is difficult as there are so many drowning people in the world, many of them detected by image processing. For sure it is photographer's jargon, but I'm only an amateur. I'm not struggling to get the files promoted, but I'm struggling to understand. No need to justify your comments, they are perfect. Parts are considered too dark, this is understood.

  • First of all is drowned an absolute measure at all? Mostly it is written as 'drowned', not as drowned. Or is it an individual impression? What tools can I use to find out drowned areas in an image, that do not depend on eyes and monitor settings and light conditions around? Freely available tools preferred.
  • As far as I understand, the histogram does not depend on the monitor or the calibration of the monitor.
  • Is there some description of drowned available (a link will do)?
  • The term drowned is not mentioned in Commons:Image guidelines, but there is a hint Lost details in shadow areas, replaced by JPEG maps. Is this the meaning of drowned? (if so, maybe it should be mentioned there). Is it a pejorative & short term for Lost details in shadow areas?
  • I understand the meaning of 'too dark'. That is a perfectly sound individual impression, that can be shared, but doesn't need to. But drowned doesn't seem to mean the same as 'too dark'. Although some people use the words synonymously ([1], [2] (abgesoffen in German = drowned))
  • For the following example image I've tried to get the incriminated areas (although small). But after that I even understand less.
  • Some areas are drowned in darkness, much too dark, incriminated areas marked in the meantime
    Some areas are drowned in darkness, much too dark, incriminated areas marked in the meantime
  • threshold diagram (GIMP)
    threshold diagram (GIMP)
  • black (0,0,0), threshold 0.042 replaced by red
    black (0,0,0), threshold 0.042 replaced by red
The threshold diagram does not show real black areas, and when I move the slider nearer to zero, the threshold diagram gets white except some single pixels. The darkest area is near to the knee of the lady, which was a surprise for me. Can we use the images above to illustrate 'drowned'?
  • So the point is: When is an area drowned, and when it is ok? What criteria can be applied to differ?
  • A brighter version, but are the drowned areas gone?
    A brighter version, but are the drowned areas gone?

I do not have a calibrated monitor, so I do not see what you see guys. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is an extremly silly question. And for sure, it is possible to make a thesis out of this.
The simple fact is, that even on the calibrated monitor, I could not see any more structures. For my eye it is BLACK, even when you found, that your pixels have RGB>1.
I took a lot of time to make my findings clear in simple, non-scientific words. But obviously it bothered you so much, that someone had an opinion about your image, that you need to make a provocation out of a simple description (Is there some description of drowned available (a link will do))?
--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to bother you CEphoto, Uwe Aranas. I was not upset by your opinion. And thanks for your answer, it is not only the calibrated monitor but the visual impression. Which is ok. I was just a bit confused as both of you argued with the calibrated monitor. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herzi Pinki: Wenn du Probleme hast, die von dir produzierten Bilder korrekt zu bearbeiten und zu beurteilen - ob das jetzt an deinem Monitor liegt oder an einem fehlenden leistungsfähigen Programm - dann solltest du dir überlegen, hier vielleicht einen Investition zu tätigen. Wie andere auch. Ich habe in Wien zu einem Workshop eingeladen, das war dir bekannt, in dem auch diese Probleme erörtet wurden anhand von Beispielen, du hat aber kein Interesse gezeigt. Möchtest du jetzt diesen Workshop hier auf der QI-Diskussionsseite? Quasi eine Einzelschulung? Wie es scheint, hast du generell die Farben angehoben, nicht jedoch differenziert. Was dazu geführt hat, dass das, was eh in Ordnung war, ebenfalls angehoben wurde. Es geht auch nicht, ein Schwarz anheben zu wollen, Schwarz bleibt schwarz, ich kann es höchstens grau machen. Dasselbe gilt im Übrigen auch für Weiß. Es geht in diesem Fall um die Tiefen, und die Tiefen haben mit Schwarz wenig zu tun. Es sind schlichtweg die dunklen Bereiche - jedoch nicht schwarz. Schwarz selbst war nur ein Teil des Baumstumpfes (deswegen mein Hinweis, dass du ev. etwas an der Kamera machen solltest), alles andere war "abgesoffen". Ich kenne das kostenlose, mitgelieferte Bildbearbeitungsprogramm von Nikon nicht, da aber der Großteil der sich selbst ernstnehmenden Fotografen nicht damit arbeiten, dürfte das einen Grund haben. Ich mache auch mit Photoshop kein Panorama, kein Focus-Stacking oder ein HDR, obwohl alle diese Funktionen in PS vorhanden sind. Auch korrigiere ich perspektivische Verzerrungen nicht mit dem Tilt/shift Programm oder Lightroom, denn das ist ein unzulängliches Zusatzgimmick.

Mit deiner leider sehr typischen Penetranz, den anderen doch beweisen zu wollen, dass du im Grunde genommen recht hast, wirst du jedenfalls hier wenig Erfolg haben (wie sonst übrigens inzwischen auch nicht mehr). Man kann mit Histogramme alleine ein Bild nicht beurteilen, es zeigt im Grunde genommen nur eine Tendenz auf. Falls du aber der Meinung bist, dass Histogramme allein über die Qualität eines Bildes Auskunft geben, gewissermaßen den Beweis liefern, dann kann ich dir nur raten, nicht mehr die Bilder selbst, sondern gleich die Histogramme zu nominieren. --Hubertl 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dir auch danke für deine Antwort. lg --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe auf dem fraglichen Bild absolut nichts bildwichtiges, das störend abgesoffen wäre. Dafür braucht man auch wirklich keinen wie auch immer kalibrierten Monitor. Der Beleuchtungskontrast ist recht hoch, aber das ist nun mal so bei Sonnenschein und wirkt auf mich im Foto durchaus natürlich umgesetzt. Da sind Bildbereiche im Schatten halt sehr dunkel bis schwarz. Das ist mir persönlich deutlich lieber als zwanghaftes Tonemapping oder Kurbeln an allen möglichen Knöpfen, damit überall im Bild irgendwas zu erkennen ist. Ok, ausgefressene Lichter bzw. Clipping einzelner Farbkanäle sind mein Hobby, aber auch da gibt es Bewertungsspielraum. Was es nicht gibt, sind absolute Beurteilungs- und Qualitätskriterien in der Fotografie. Die Energie, die manche hier aufbringen, um ihren jeweiligen POV als allgemeingültige Regel zu installieren, ist kontraproduktiv und verschwendet. Wenn ich als Fotoknipser entscheide, bestimmte Bildbereiche absaufen zu lassen, dann ist das kein technischer Fehler, sondern Absicht. Dasselbe gilt für stürzende Linien oder knappe Zuschnitte oder solche mit viel Luft drumherum. -- Smial (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted

Please have a look at [3]. --Smial (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody out there? -- Smial (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know much about usefulness. The page exists, a bot is filling it day by day with unsorted images. After sorting those images manually into a bunch of specialized galleries, somehow magically some new entries appear on Commons:Quality images. -- Smial (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we do something ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I helped a time in this topic, however the image are moved by the BOT in a gallery like this one : Commons:Quality images/Subject/Architecture/Religious/Churches, if you're able to open it you must at least wait several minutes. There is several hundred of images in this gallery and I don't see how can someone find a specific image in it, thus I don't see why doing this. I could do it, if the images were categorized with a real category and not only moved in a gallery. How many images will there be in 10 years in this gallery? I do this kind of thing for the FP galleries because the small number of promoted images allow to do the job, but here.... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we own a system to create useless galleries? What if the bot looks for the existing categories of the specific image and adds new categories like "Category:Quality images of xyz" instead? If this categoriy exists, the image will simply be tagged. If the category not exists, the bot could create it and put it in the category tree below "Category:xyz". -- Smial (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the "good image" tool and the qi categories are more than enough. The images from the galleries should be appended to the categories. And IMO each nominated image should be proposed for at least one qi category before promotion. With nomination of an FP a gallery must be given too. A good way. (Yes, with the FP nomination the gallery is called category. That's IMO wrong. I think real categories in FP are better too.) --XRay talk 10:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

In section Consensual review, there is a link to Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules but if you click, it doesn't make anything, is the link wrong? could anybody fix it? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works for me (now). Poco2 07:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ralf Roletschek

Hi there.

Please have a look here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#September_29.2C_2015

And compare the assesments of his nominations, and the assesments of mine.

For years, the user mentioned above ignores deliberately our common rules.

Meaningfull file names is a MANDATORY in QIC, as need of perspective corrections is too. When a picture is declined because of a perspective distortion, he just votes a "support", no matter of the picture, only for making a point (He is not alone).

He does not care, in spite of many messages, warnings, and oppose votes. Today, he opposed to one of my noms in revenge of my new opposes to his wrong nominattions.

I just put this here now, today, the next time I'll go to ask admins for a ban. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you refer to this edit? -- Smial (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a retaliation against my declines of his nominations the same day and the day before.--Jebulon (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I too have had problems with RalfR, along the lines of perspective, filenames and underexposure. I found that he generally seems to assume that his images are perfect and that QIC exists to rubber-stamp them as such. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot problem?

My pictures Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche,_Eberswalde,_Orgel,_150926,_ako.jpg and Maria-Magdalenen-Kirche, Eberswalde, 150926, ako.jpg were promoted but not properly processed by the bot. It seems as if none of the candidates of october, 1st were processed at all. How do we handle this? --Code (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handarbeit, Code, du findest deine Dateien von diesem Tag hier. Einfach {{QualityImage}} einfügen. In diesem speziellen Fall ist es bestimmt erlaubt. --Hubertl 17:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tja, wenn du einfach meine Kirche fotografierst... Das ist die Strafe, ich habe den Bot verhext. --Ralf Roleček 18:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ralf, wusste nicht, dass das Deine ist. Ich hoffe, Du magst die Bilder trotzdem. Werde mich an die Handarbeit begeben, sobald es die Zeit zulässt. Ist gerade etwas eng. --Code (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ich gehe davon aus, Code, dass du gerade die Auswirkung des EUGh-Urteils dieses netten Österreichers auf Wikipedia-Datenschutz hin untersuchst und deswegen wenig Zeit hast. Ich habe mal deine beiden Bilder von diesem Tag auf QI gesetzt. --Hubertl 05:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: So ähnlich. Heute muss ich erstmal die Presse gegen Zensurbemühungen von Politikern verteidigen. Ich danke Dir vielmals, ich hätte mich sonst am Wochenende an die Arbeit gemacht. Sehr nett von Dir. --Code (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handling of sockpuppet user

Today - after Hubertl called CU for a sockpuppet analysis (see Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ficilbotoe95) - it turned out, that User:Nordenfan used the sock account User:Ficilbotoe95 to self-promote his nominations. The user was stubborn enough to deny the allegations until the last minute. see also User_talk:Nordenfan#Sockenpuppen.

This is not the first time, that QIC has to deal with this uncolleagual and unfair behaviour. While Nordenfan was blocked for a duration of one month in the participation at any WikiCommons activities, I suggest, that verified sockpuppet users which used QIC als platform for their activities are indefinetly excluded from participation in QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish a vote, you will have my strong support.--Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Ralf Roleček 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not take other measures that are determined by the administrators. They are very responsive when asked for help, there is no need for additional protection rules. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha ha. Very funny.--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I am glad I could brighten your day :) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this particulary case, I would exclude Nordenfan for half a year, maximum one year from QI, additionaly to the administrators one month block. Not indefinitely. --Hubertl 05:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How will actually determine whether there really is a sock puppet? --XRay talk 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets are afaik determined by comparison of IP. What at a first glance looks like a sockpuppet might be in reality just the use of the same computer by two persons. However, as Nordenfan claimed that he has nothing to do with Ficilbotoe9 and suggested that this user is living in another town, he himself ruled out this possibility to waive the allegations. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My first thought was, that IP address only isn't enough. Thanks for your explanation.--XRay talk 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: : in this case, both users has told in previous, pretty old edits, from where they come from. Surprisingly from the same town, more surprisingly from the same small area of this town. They also edited in the same articles, and fightened together in the same discussions. And than, this young boy will tell us, that he has nothing to do with this other account? But this is not really a surprise for me, after 100k Edits in the german Wikipedia, seeing the fights against hundreds of socket puppets in the last eleven years.--Hubertl 14:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the one month block by Krd is enough as any sanction should be preventive; not punitive. Longtime block may encourage that user to abandon that account and go for a new account to override the sanction. Jee 07:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
any sanction should be preventive; not punitive. Dear Jee, let me disagree with you for part. No a "sanction" (your word) is and has to be punitive too.--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking from an extention of the block; especially as I cannot overrule an administrators decisions. I am talking from excluding the user from participating in QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar situation this year, in fact, as for general prevention, we should act clearly and unequivocally. Banning from QI for at least half a year, especially, when the bemoaned does not act comprehensive. The CU result is absolutely clear, there is no doubt left. --Hubertl 15:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of declined image

I nominated an image (in error) which was swiftly declined and I deleted it. I was told that this is not allowed and the image was re-instated as a candidate. I can't find this rule anywhere. Editors should be able to erase images nominated in error. Charles (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it as long it is not reviewed. After review, no more remove. Also, after change of date, no more move; meaning, that removing photos you nominated yesterday, cannot be removed. The correct tool is to withdraw the image. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: I disagree, every nominator can delete his own nomination when he wants. I would like you to show us, please, where the contrary is written, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I disagree, we practised this different in the past. This procedure prevents, that someone deletes his decline and nominates another picture instead. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: My first thought was: "yes, he got a point". My second thought is: "and so what ?"... Let's disagree ! Clin --Jebulon (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we've a number of nominations per day limit, I agree with Uwe Aranas to avoid the confusion and uncertainties a deletion can create. Better withdraw or strike off, keeping the history visible. This is applicable to un-reviewed noms too. Otherwise I can delete one and fill the gap after one or two days. I've plenty of noms archived as "unassessed" due to many reasons. ;) Jee 14:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point dear Jee, but again : "so what ?" if you nominate again an unassessed picture (especially an unassessed picture I would say !) instead of a declined one, even before the end of the process ? Where is the problem ? I'm frequently "attacked" because I "love rules", but here, frankly, I don't understand...--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, if you got my point: As long as the image is unassessed in the first day of the nomination, it can be revoked - by that an erroneous nomination can be exchanged. This happens pretty often. But as soon as there is an assessment - and the assessment starts in the moment, that someone leaves a remark, a comment or a vote - it cannot be revoked. You can draw the rule Carefully select your best images to nominate ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jeb, I think Uwe Aranas alredy explained it. Let me make a try. We've a rule: "Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator." When someone replace a nom later, it can be considered as an attempt to override this (five per day) limit.
BTW, why we delete something here? Wikimedia projects have a longtime practice, no to delete. Even deleting comments is discouraged. Striking off mistakes is the best practice unless we really want to hide something. Jee 02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cccfalon and Jkadavoor: as long as there is no comment or assessing, you can change the picture (or just deleting them). But not after. --Hubertl 05:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But - ehm, why is "an attempt to override this (five per day) limit" something wrong? There are many ways to to override this rule and they are often accepted, e.g. nominating someone elses pictures who already reached the limit? Denis Barthel (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No; you can't override that rule by nominating other's works. Jee 14:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some days ago, I've withdrawn one of my own nomination after a PROMOTION. AhAh. Why ? Nominated by mistake: already QI !! I did not delete. The gray frame stood for a while, very visible. And of course I have renominated a fifth image immediately. Which was promoted. AhAh. I'm very happy with that.--Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is concentrating on the possibility that editors will deliberately nominate a 6th image if they remove one uploaded in error. Just modify the rule to state no more than five nominations per day including any withdrawn or deleted. Charles (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Feeders

Hi! I noticed that there are a lot of "top feeding" where images are nominated and promoted, within minutes! 4 October 2015, for instance, there are 123 entries and before a whole hour has passed of the next day, 78 have been reviewed and promoted -- more than 2/3s of them!

It starts to look like a popular singles bar!

Kudos to those who review the photos of those who are not so popular at the bar, whose nominations wait for days instead of minutes.

Is there a reason for this that I am not seeing?

Thanks! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of many reasons, why this can happen:
    • The really good and the really bad images are identified fast.
    • It is a voluntary work and it is upon the reviewers decision how much of their precious time they are willing to spend.
    • As people expect a good reason for a decline of their images, the less experiences reviewers mostly skip such images.
    • Images with repairable flaws need a follow up and sometimes a kind of guidance to the author. Another time consuming work which is not favorised by everyone.
    • Some photographers are known for their ungratefulness and their backfiring to the reviewers. Reviewers might refrain from spending their time to such people.

Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Representing the poor images at the bottom of the page....
Thank you, Cccefalon, for your sensible answer to my question. Today, I notice that there were the maximum nominations by one user and then all five of them were promoted by only one user!! A typical real-world response to this might be "Get a room already" which is probably rude and has no place here, but the participants in this review arena might be mindful that it is very, very public here. The appearance of credibility is as important as the credibility -- eh, it is difficult to express....
Meanwhile, me (and perhaps others) certainly do appreciate when some of the QI celebrities take a look at the lower portions of the review mechanism. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RaboKarbakian for this, until now, most unexpected use of my short film of barnacles in North-West Greenland in a context that I honestly do not completely grasp. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question, and excellent answers. I think you are right both. As for me, I do not hesitate to put some already promotted (sorry Uwe for your Alhambra ceiling, I jus wish to go further with this image) into the Consensual Review, and I encourage others to do so, this is not a punishment neither a shame !--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+ 1 ! In the long run, when we went through a critical assessment, we have far more benefits than when images are simply waved through. Thanks for declining, Jebulon and Uwe! And I mean it! --Hubertl 18:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I always preferred to review the old ones - less edit conflicts! But yes, I did find that there was often a lack of critical analysis in reviews sometimes. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are missing you, mattbuck! --Hubertl 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 :-) --XRay talk 15:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Code (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmh...OK, let's discuss and put this question in Consensual Review (joke)--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do promoted photos get anything to indicate that?

Do photos that are promoted get any tag or anything to indicate that? Bubba73 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two full days after getting a promotional vote the QICbot tags the image page with {{QualityImage}}. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bubba73 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
There is also a tag that can be used in the galleries {{QI seal}}, an example which can be seen at Abies alba. And when cruising the galleries with javascript enabled, there is a button which will display whatever QI images reside there. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshopped or not photoschopped?

see the bride on the right side.... There is a diskussion about in de:WP right now. --Hubertl 15:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CR or not CR: or the perverse effect of well-intentioned comments

  • More and more reviewers at QIC comment on the nominations without putting explicitly a vote. This serves to draw the attention of the nominator to some minor flaws or just to express an opinion. However well-intentioned this practice (usually) is, it has the perverse effect of putting the nomination in a kind of limbo (where no one cares for it any more), from where the only ways to escape are to respond to the comment or sending the image to CR. In my opinion the core part of QIC is not a forum and should not become one. If I did not remove all dust spots or my verticals are not perfect, that is my fault only and I deserve a decline. There will be plenty of time to re-nominate or sending the image to CR after corrected.
  • My second thought is about what a QI is. More and more I assist to excellent images being criticized because of minor technical flaws, such as a couple of dust spots or the lack of perfect verticality, while others with poor compositions, clumsy framings, weird geometries or just poor exposure are swiftly promoted. Come on guys, Photography is much, much more than the absence of formal flaws! If pixel-counting were sufficient, a bot could do the job. Just my 2-cents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to judge "this was the best the person could do with their equipment and without photoshop". We are to judge whether the image on Commons is of good quality. I agree there's more to it than pixel counting, and when I was reviewing I would bring attention to minor flaws such as bad crops, dust spots, hot pixels. This is because those are items which should be fixed on every single photo that comes through here. You give the nominator a chance to correct it - if they do you promote it, if they don't you decline it. No image can be of good quality if there are dust spots, or hot pixels, or if the photo extends beyond the borders of an image. Anything with that is sloppy and we should not allow sloppy work into QI.
The reason I would give someone a comment rather than instant decline is because you're right, we sometimes miss things and it's our own fault, but declining something which is easily fixable is just unnecessarily cruel and rude, and it promotes stuff being sent to CR unnecessarily. Your image has dust spots? OK, if you fixed them it would be QI. We're not in a big rush to promote/decline everything on the first day, fix the error and I'll check back in a few days. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matt here. Please, give nominators a chance to improve their pictures before sentencing it. Otherwise we would just increase the flow of pictures to CR, as the picture, after the fix of whatever flaws, does deserve the QI stamp and would always find somebody willing to promote it. Poco2 19:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is somehow disappointing that none of the comments above mention the most important points raised in this discussion: the perverse effect of well-intentioned comments and the quality of the reviews, almost sistematically focused on (minor) formal aspects. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    QI has always had a lack of consistency between reviewers, but that does not mean that the people who leave comments should relax their standards. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Own candidates??!?? -- Smial (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's your own nom/photo, send it to CR. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that QI focuses mainly on formal aspects. Not every well-composed picture meets also the QI standards. I think this is quite normal and nothing to worry about. I don't nominate every picture I upload to commons although I only upload those of which I think they are really good. But I know that not every good picture is also a QI. And a well-founded decline is nothing that should be taken personal. It can't really be questioned that a picture with dust spots or CA shouldn't be promoted, even if the composition is great. But I absolutely agree with Alvesgaspar that we don't care enough about compositional aspects and educational value in QIC. I also agree with Cccefalon that a reviewer should promote or decline a picture after an issue he mentioned before was later resolved by the nominator. --Code (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of hypocrisy here, as I can read ? Mmmmh ? Of course, some nominators here have only a mantra in head: "Nominate my five pics everyday", and nothing else. The best friends of this behavior are : lack of preparation, lack of respect of the reviewers, lack of concentration, lack of care. And therefore: tilts, unsharpness, bad crops, dust spots, overexpose, underexpose, perpective not corrected, abuse of choice of so-called intentional distortion (no time lost in processing, yuppie !) etc... No matter !!! Quick quick quick ! Out of the camera, immediately in QIC page !! Well, I think I support Alvesgaspar here. You nominate a picture : it is your responsibility, and it needs care and a minimum of time. I'm sure that in many cases, the review takes more time that all the uploading process, including the time necessary for taking the picture !! Where is the problem of a decline ? If a picture has a flaw like a dust spot, it cannot be a QI. Simple, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are pushing it too far. The only target you will achieve doing so is that those who dare to nominate their first pictures in QIC will never come back again, and a lot of stuff will be handled in CR (more work and maintenance) as the picture would deserve the promotion after those flaws are fixed. Poco2 20:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm not surprised that you answer and disagree. Second, I'm not a bot, but a human, and I'm able to think of what I do when I vote. There are principles, personal own rules, and flexibility. Remember my first noms in 2010, remember yours, and... remember the meaning of your user name ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not my intention to open a can of worms! I just wanted to call the attention to the disproportionate power an (usually) innocent comment can have in a nomination: to suspend it until the nominator responds to the reviewer or complies with the suggested improvement, no matter how good the image is or how he feels about it. Don’t ask me why it happens because I don’t know. But in my opinion it is not fair. With a decline vote, he/she would have the possibility of sending it straight to CR; with just a candid comment or a well-intentioned suggestion, he would be blamed to do so (as I was recently). The fact is QIC was not intended to work that way and the templates are obviously not designed to accommodate discussions. I agree with Jebulon in that there is some mild hypocrisy in the above reactions. Claiming that a straight decline would chase away newbies is just a strawman fallacy: the editors opposing strongly such practice are not newbies at all. On the contrary, they are among the editors with a larger number of promoted images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- Smial (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI categorization tool

screenshot QI categorization tool

More than 7900 images pending. Firefox on my old win xp machine at home (32 bit) crashes if I try to work on this page. Here at work (Win 7 pro 64, Firefox, SSD, 8 GB Ram, VDSL 50.000) the page looks like... see screenshot. Solution? Any suggestions? -- Smial (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could save the page? The straight html provides urls to the individual image pages and they could be dealt with there. Maybe you could email the page to me and I could divide it into 25 image galleries and it could be managed from that by more than just one brave volunteer. The original page is (usually) a convenience, not a necessity. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry for my unclear questions. I addressed the problem several times in September/October, last discussion can be found here. Without solution and/or consequences. In September I split the page into two parts, one with about 1.000 to 2.000 images to work on, the rest I moved to ../temp. With up to +- 1.000 images the page works with pleasant speed. End of September I needed to move all images back to the main page, as I knew, not to have fast internet connection for several weeks. I've several times tried to find some contributors who like to help, with little or no effect. So my question for a solution was not about technical problem how to work on a too big page, but about either help to reduce this no more acceptable long queue, or for suggestions about a completely different manner to deal with promoted images. -- Smial (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smial, I tried to contribute a little bit to this page but on Firefox as well as on Explorer, the script stopped working and I got nothing. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every now and then a brave colleague attempts to work on the page, but I can understand that this happens only a short time, because the work is just too cumbersome. -- Smial (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 eigene Bilder oder 5 Nominierungen pro Account?

Jeder Teilnehmer darf täglich bis zu fünf Bilder nominieren. - Wer sind "Teilnehmer"? Es gibt keine Einschränkung, daß man nur eigene Bilder vorschlagen darf, man darf nur eigene Bilder nicht bewerten. Und nur angemeldete Benutzer dürfen bewerten. Also dürfen auch IPs vorschlagen. Also darf man beliebig viele FREMDE Bilder vorschlagen. Muß ich mich nun abmelden, um fremde Bildr zu nominieren? Es ist doch das Ziel, möglichst viele gute Bilder zu kennzeichnen? --Ralf Roleček 23:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich habe stets maximal fünf Bilder vorgeschlagen, egal ob eigene oder fremde. Es wäre vermutlich mindestens knuffig, sich abzumelden und unter IP weitere fünf Bilder von smial einzutragen, wenn mein tägliches Kontingent erschöpft ist. -- Smial (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist wohl die Frage, ob es ein Projekt ist, das die besten Fotos auf Commons auszeichenen will, oder ob es mehr eine (sorry!) Egomanenveranstaltung sein soll. Denn wenn jedeR insgesamt nur 5 Bilder nominieren darf, wird keineR (oder nur selten jemand) auf die Idee kommen, Bilder anderer FotografInnen zu nominieren. So finden sich in den QIs eben nicht die besten Bilder von Commons, sondern die besten Bilder der hier aktiven UserInnen. Natürlich kommen jetzt wieder welche, die sagen, das Projekt steht ja allen offen - es hat aber nicht jedeR die Zeit, sich hier zu engagieren, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Das heißt, Zeit ist der erste Faktor, der über gute und schlechte Bilder entscheidet. Da Zeit (außer der Belichtungszeit) aber üblicherweise kein Kriterium für gute Bilder ist, wird damit das Projekt QI vollkommen entwertet, denn die Auszeichnung sagt ja in erster Linie etwas über die Zeit des Fotografen aus.
Deshalb mein Vorschlag: JedeR darf pro 5 fremden Bildern eine durch die Community festzulegende Anzahl von eigenen Bildern (2 bis 5) nominieren. D.h., nominiert jemand 10 (15, etc.) fremde Bilder, darf er auch die doppelte (dreifache, etc.) Anzahl eigener Bilder nominieren. - Ein weiterer Schritt wäre dann, daß eine Fremdnominierung bereits als Promotion gilt, denn es ist dasselbe, ob jemand die Eigennominierung eines anderen bewertet oder ob er sich bei einem fremden Bild irgendwo auf Commons denkt, daß es eine Auszeichnung wert ist (widersprochen werden kann ja in jedem Fall). Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ich habe das Thema hier eröffnet, weil ich gestern Bilder anderer Fotografen nominiert habe, die dann über den erlaubten 5 lagen. Einfach so, weil sie mir gefallen haben. --Ralf Roleček 08:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a lengthy discussion in October and November 2014, we concluded "Maximum number of daily nominations per user is 5". No reason for inducing a new interpretation of the result. Also see our guidelines: "Any registered user, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination." You nominate more than five and the surplus won't be eligible. If an IP number (IP is not a registered User) is nominating, it won't be eligible as well. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Die Diskussion habe ich nicht verfolgt, weil ich kein englisch kann. --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gut, dann wäre die Sache jetzt geklärt und Du weisst, dass es Dir nichts nützt, wenn Du mehr als 5 Bilder nominierst oder Dich als IP einloggst :) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Häferl: Daß QIC die Tendenz zu einer Veranstaltung hat, an der nur ein kleiner, elitärer Kreis beteiligt ist, unterschreibe ich gern, auch wenn ich den Begriff "Egomanen" nicht unterstützen möchte. Natürlich sind hier Leute, die viel Zeit investieren können, gegenüber Gelegenheitsmitarbeitern im Vorteil, wenn es darum geht, ihre Bilder durchzubringen. Dein Vorschlag würde jedoch die "Zeithaber" noch stärker bevorteilen, also genau gar nichts im Sinne einer breiteren Mitarbeiterbasis verbessern. Eine Fremdnominierung direkt als Promotion zu behandeln, stellt das bisherige Verfahren völlig auf den Kopf, denn bislang gehen stets mindestens vier Augen bzw. zwei Urteile in die Bewertung ein: Die Meinung des Vorschlagenden, der ein Bild für gut genug für QI hält und die desjenigen, der sein support oder sein decline hineinpflanzt. --Smial (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a proposal which should be discussed by the community, it has to be written in English as the interconnecting language of this forum.
However, it would oppose the proposal of Häferl that the nomination of anothers photo already counts as a promotion. As for now, most nominations of other authors are not meeting the guidelinesand as a result, this proposal in consequence would flood the consensual review. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ralf Roletschek: the "rule of five" was introduced due to people mass-nominating images, which were swiftly promoted despite myriad flaws. The number of reviewers is significantly fewer than the number of nominators, and without rules QI becomes more of a chore. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is: 5 Nominierung pro Account. I'll oppose to any change, it is a very good rule.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At FPC we can also nominate pics of a foreign photographer additional to the two own and i think, its a good rule. --Ralf Roleček 21:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't, even at FPC. Zwei Nominierung pro account is the rule.--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not too seriously: For each 100 reviews or 100 categorized images on "Recently promoted" we could allow one more QI candidate as a bonus here. ;-) -- Smial (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Google-Translation: I will nominate 4 + 1 for me personally in future. There are many good photographers here and not everyone knows about QIC. Not everyone taking part. That's why I'm going every day, if I nominate own pictures, also suggest a strange photo. It would be nice if you would reconsider these rules. --Ralf Roleček 21:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please could anyone translate this, my english is not good enough, um mich präzise auszudrücken. Danke im voraus. ;-)
Okay, Smial, "kleiner, elitärer Kreis" is better. ;-) Es freut mich, dass bezüglich der Fremdnominierungen jetzt eine Diskussion in Gang kommt und Ralf bereits einen guten Vorsatz gefasst hat. Eine Diskussion anzuregen war der Sinn meines Vorschlags. Deshalb (und weil es extrem mühsam wäre, auf Englisch zu diskutieren) mische ich mich da auch nicht weiter ein, würde mich aber freuen, wenn Ihr zu einer für alle akzeptablen Lösung findet. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I chucked it into google translate:
Okay, smial, "small, elite circle" is better. ;-) I am pleased that with respect to the foreign nominations now a discussion gets underway and Ralf has already passed a good resolution. To stimulate discussion was the meaning of my proposal. Therefore (and because it would be extremely tedious to discuss in English) I mingle as a not continue, but I would be pleased if you find an acceptable solution for all. Nice greetings, --Häferl (talk) 22:12, November 18 2015 (UTC)
-mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_13&oldid=182252525"