Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 23

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

How do to get someone to review?

A plethroa of images were submitted after the one image I submitted and they were all approved overnight. Yet, the image I nominated is still sitting there with "review needed". I nominated the slug image on Jan 23, 2020. This image has been on main slug wiki page for 12 years. It's also been borrowed from wikipedia and used in print magazines, websites, and possibly even text books. It's a remarkable photo and should at least be reviewed. Job (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Job: Unfortunately, that is the way is sometimes is. Submitted photos are not reviewed in chronological order but at the whim of other users/nominators. The photos are reviewed by other more experienced nominators, not some employed panel of experts. Photos that are hard to judge are often reviewed later than other. Some sit for a week and some do not get reviewed at all. The photo's "pedigree" has nothing to do with when/if it is reviewed. I see that this nom is your first edit on Commons and that you are probably not used to the way things work here, so welcome, you just have to be patient. --Cart (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement to specify location?

I've quite a number of times seen assertions that photos need to have geocoordinates to pass QIC, but is that written up as a requirement anywhere? Right now, there are a bunch of very interesting photos from Wiki Loves Africa 2019 that are being nominated at QIC. They lack geocoordinates and in some cases mention nothing more specific in terms of location than the name of the country. It looks like they're having no trouble passing. Is that OK? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about QIs is dealt with in form of links on the COM:QIC page, so it's not as simple to see all the rules and guidelines as on FPC. Location is no exception. On Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements, #3 states that a photo should "be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages". Following that link to Commons:Categories, you can see in Commons:Categories#Categorization tips that good/proper categorization includes locations: "The categories (or galleries) you choose for your uploads should answer as many as possible of the following questions:... ...where?: where was the image taken? What is the location of the subject? What is the location of the camera? This is especially important for pictures of places.". --Cart (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So therefore, should we be voting down pictures that have vague location information (someplace in Malawi, someplace on the Benue River in Nigeria)? I doubt an effort to oppose such photos would be successful. I have to confess, I really don't understand how guidelines on this site are so routinely and resolutely flouted, with no attempt by the mods to enforce them. At some point, there had to be a consensus behind them, yet many of them seem to be either a complete dead letter or honored in the breach at will. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A further question: Just how exactly do you feel a location needs to be described? Also, do we provide exceptions for photos of someone's own garden or a place lovers hang out that they might want to keep secret? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is {{Location withheld}} for such cases and that's OK, but for most photos, coordinates are helpful and should be part of what we call a meaningful description. --A.Savin 03:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, the times are changing. Commons has never been good at mentoring new users due to language problems, and many of the users who built this site are slowly leaving "active duty". Those that are left are probably tired of telling people over and over again to do things correctly. This is Internet and people do whatever they can get away with. It's easier to pick up bad habits from other users than good. Also, the rest of the digital wold is automated, while Commons is stuck in ancient coding. If you can't add the location with a click on a map as on most other photo sites, it is too much work and probably like "OK Boomer". A more modern QIC would have some sort of form where boxes had to be filled in before you could nominate a picture. Kind of like when you fill in your name and adress when you buy something online and you get a red message when you miss something. --Cart (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I assume no-one is working on such a form. Are there any admins or other users here who know how to code? Unfortunately, I don't, so I couldn't volunteer for such a project. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a form would have to integrate with the entire structure of files, so making one would be a huge undertaking. It would require a major makeover of the site, not something that our resident code writers could easily do. Plus any changes have to be approved by the community and I suspect many users would oppose something that would require them to work harder to get their QIs. --Cart (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, in that case, what's the point in having guidelines if they're routinely flouted with the approval of the community? Are they being kept on the books due to inertia and perhaps because they're considered a theoretical ideal? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is more than I can answer. You could ask people if we should change the guidelines some way, but the QIC community is notorious for shirking/not give a damn about discussions on talk pages unless their privileges are threatened or if there is a new gadget that will reduce work for them. --Cart (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like apathy, with inertia in a distant second place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the next time the Wikimedia Foundation asks for proposals for software changes, we can propose for work to be done on this and try to get votes for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that kind of proposal, if it comes up. Please keep this in mind. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for bringing this up, I've proposed a change in our image guideliness. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation should be recommended only, but not mandatory. I am ready to support only this wording. With the reasons:
1. Subjects (studio shooting) - this can be pointless. For example, a glass cup or scissors made in China and photographed somewhere in Europe.
2. Location during the trip. In the village, this is possible. But what about when traveling in the wild (in a forest or on a boat trip)? Exact coordinates are not always possible to obtain, restore if they were not recorded at the time of shooting.
3. Closed objects for which it is forbidden to indicate the exact coordinates (military, strategic or police).
Without amendment, that geocoding is desirable, but not necessarily i will be strong oppose. -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with George Chernilevsky on this subject: Geolocation should be recommended, but not mandatory - So it should not be a reason to decline an image because of missing geocoordinates.
I want to add a fourth reason though: Images where a geolocation would be harmful to the environment (eg. endangered species).
@W.carter: In my opinion your quote from Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips is missing an essential part: "where?: where was the image taken? What is the location of the subject? What is the location of the camera? This is especially important for pictures of places. E.g. Category:Basin Street, New Orleans also use {{Location}}" So sorting the file in a category that has a clear location assigned to it (maybe even with an item on Wikidata) is enough. Yes, it also says to use {{Location}}, but if the location template adds nothing to the overall image description (because the image is already perfectly well described, categorised in the appropriate categories and has a link to an item on Wikidata with depicts (P131)) there is no use in having this template on the description page. If there is no use in it, why should it be mandatory?
I think it is always best to look at such changes with concrete examples:
1) File:Chasen kusenaoshi with chasen-top oblique-fs PNr°0504.jpg - that would be #1 of the examples by George Chernilevsky. There is no use in having a location template in this image.
2) File:Building at Döblinger Hauptstraße 83 in Döbling, Vienna, Austria PNr°0516.jpg - Let's image there isn't the geolocation already on the description page. The description page tells you the name of the building (google search), the address (OSM, Google Maps) and is linked to an item on Wikidata which is geolocated itself. What value would {{Location}} add to the image so that it would be reasonable to decline the image because of this?
3) File:VISTA gigapixel mosaic of the central parts of the Milky Way-Eso1242a.tif - Let's imagine that this image was taken by a Wikimedian (I already saw images with comparable quality). What geolocation would you add here? There would be no use in adding a geolocation for this image.
4) File:Military training ground Großmittel-warning sign at border-exclusion zone de+en-ar-9to16 PNr°0508.jpg - This sign is placed at the border of a military proving ground in Austria. This sign is nothing special and there are many signes like this one at the border around the area. If not for the background, what use would be here in adding a geolocation?
5) File:Rheinpark in Cologne, Germany - view from the Rheinseilbahn PNr°0191.JPG - An image I shot out of the window from the Rheinseilbahn in Cologne (Cologne Cable Car). Looking at the ways I maybe would be able to pinpoint a location since I could find it on the satellite view on Google Maps. What if the landscape changed? Eg.: I recently was on a construction site where they want to build a very large building for storage. On that site they found ramins of a former roman village. If I do not track my location I will never be able to tell exactly where I have taken the image. That would be #2 of the examples by George Chernilevsky.
6) File:Joseph D. Kucan at gamescom 2009 presenting Command & Conquer 4- Tiberian Twilight PNr°0256.JPG - This image was taken at Gamescom in 2009. What location should I add here? It's not like the location is completely useless here since you wouldn't be able to take this image anywhere but in the big fair hall.
7) File:Steyr 12M18 truck of the Austrian Armed Forces-left.jpg - An image probably taken in the area of an austrian barracks where photography is prohibited. So #3 of the examples by George Chernilevsky. But I want to point out something else. I moved that image to Commons from de.wikipedia. It would be therefore eligible for QIC, but I have no idea where the image was taken. The original author maybe doesn't even know either since the image was taken more than a decade ago and the building is maybe already demolished and the area sold. Here you could argue that the background is not important and therefore the location also is not. If we go that route though, we have to admit that this would apply to many images.
8) File:Rheinmetall 120 mm gun-inside-muzzle view PNr°0109.JPG - I have taken this image on national day in Austria. Now I wouldn't be able to give a location anymore since I have no idea where the heck this was. Does it matter? Maybe. The tank was stading in the open and you could walk around and up to it. They lowered the muzzle so that you could take a look inside. A geolocation would maybe help to confirm that the image was not taken illegaly in some military area.
Now imagine an image that was taken out in the forest and you have no idea where it was. The image depicts an abandoned chapel, so it can no be anywhere. The image is declined because the location is missing. Now you just select some random coordinates and Bingo, the image is ready for QIC. My point here is that people could be forced into providing information they may not have anymore even thought said information is not necessary for the image itself. And what about {{Location withheld}}? An image that does not have this template is not eligible for QIC, but if it is included, it suddenly is even this adds no additional information to the file?
I don't want to get rid of every requirement. A proper description and good categorisation is and should be without any doubt mandatory. But beeing forced to include {{Location}} whenever possible, even not useful, is like beeing force to include descriptions in at least three different languages. If you grew up with one single language, you may struggle with even providing a second one.
--D-Kuru (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long post, here is a link to category Potatoes --D-Kuru (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Info D-Kuru: This discussion is (unfortunately) run parallell on two talk pages since several users are concerned with this. Please look at Commons talk:Image guidelines#Moving forward where the discussion has moved forward more than this and the fourth reason you want is already added to a comprehensive suggestion. --Cart (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, geolocation should not be mandatory. It's not always possible to reconstruct the exact spot where the picture was taken. I do not see much of the value of geolocation in the case of pictures of people and animals. On the other hand, architectural objects have a location included in a category description and placing the location in the description of the photo of such an object is redundant. I see such value however in case of landscape/nature photography, still, I believe geolocation even in such case should be voluntary. -- Jakubhal 07:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot is promoting images that are not of quality

I cant underestand whats happend, this image mine is not actually QI. I have not reviewed the impact on other photographs but there is a high probability that has promoted many others, it is the responsibility of the authors to verify this. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For unknown reason it has been set to "promotion" by user SevenPandas, while setting the "QICtotal" template. diff --Smial (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a user error --Wilfredor (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chenspec case at COM:AN/U

I have set up a discussion here.--Peulle (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eventuell versteht er/sie das Verfahren schlicht und einfach nicht? -- Smial (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

current vandalization

What is the procedure to request reverting editions of user ??bucharest"""local$(.*) and stopping him from further editions? --Cvmontuy (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I was going to point this out here too. I don't know if we should strike the votes and leave a comment on each nomination to explain why the vote is invalid, or just revert all the edits -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that if it doesn't get reverted immediately, we have to go through the user's comments and deal with them one by one. Some other users reacted on the vandal so it'd probably get even more confusing if we just deleted all vandal's edits. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cvmontuy and Basile Morin: You know what, I've just deleted all the vandal's edits. I've also deleted all comments from Wikimedians like User:Aristeas, User:Ermell and User:Spurzem who reacted to the vandal. I hope that's alright with you guys as your comments without the vandals' edits wouldn't make much sense there and only confused more people here. All the best, --Podzemnik (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Podzemnik. Fair action, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks good job! --Cvmontuy (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Podzemnik! Yes, that’s the best solution. --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thanks and best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --XRay talk 11:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more information to the decline section

Since this happened I think it is worth adding a few notes to the review process.
So far Commons:Quality_images_candidates#How_to_review says

"File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}"
You know, I'm not feeling the vibe
"In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision."
Insufficient quality.

Some users (including myself) don't think that "Insufficient quality." is an appropriate way to decline an image. If the image is not good enough it should not become a QI, no question. But as feedback (or reason for declining), there should be more information than a person shrugging and saying "naaa thanks, bro"). After all the images on QIC are usually voted on by single users. If that one person declines your image, only few people really vote against that. A single judge decision without propper reason does not help along.
My suggestion is to add a text part that you always have have to address the technical issue. "Doesn't look right to me" is no reason. There are limitless good text examples like "the image is overall to dark", "the main subject is out of focus", "there are stiching errors in the file" or "the image shows X which is not allowed because country A does not have FOP for that"
Any comments? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Completely agree. You can't fix something if you don't know what's wrong with it, at least that's the approach I've always taken with my patients. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case of rejection I always give a reason and I take this for granted. I admit that I did not do this during the Xmas spam in the last days. But the user's reaction was predictable anyway, regardless of whether a reason was given or not. Any detailed justification would have been a waste of time and unnecessary effort in that case. --Smial (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a longer thought about the text and this resulted in the text below. The second paragraph ("In general[...]") is meant to be placed at the very bottom of the section. I'll wait for comment. If there are no comments about this I assume that everbody is fine with the text and will replace the existing one. The translations would have to be done at some point.
I also asked user Dschwen if he still maintains the QICVote script so that the descriptions can be updated, but I did not get a reply yet. --D-Kuru (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no comment on this for a week ping the usual suspects. Feel free to ping more people who might be good to contribute.
--D-Kuru (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the feedback style. If you don't care, please enter that as well. Sorry for the double ping.
--D-Kuru (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --Nominators signature | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Short description of the reason(s) for the image beeing declined --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline, add the description and your signature. The description has to include at least one clear and comprehensible reason why the image should not be a Quality Image (e.g. low resolution, out of focus, strong image noise - check the guidelines for images on Commons for reference). If there are multiple problems, note only 2 or 3 of the most severe. Any decline with insufficient or unreasonable description may be reverted at any time. If the image quality fails to meet the minimum requirements and the image is declined as described, the nominator must not reset its status. If concerns about the provided reason(s) arise, the community can be asked for further comments and votes.
If the problem can be solved rather easily (e.g. cropping, stitching errors for panoramas, minor colour or lighting balance), the image should not be instantly declined. Instead add {{comment}} and append the issues in place of the decline description followed by your signature. Longer discussions about the image should be held on the nominator’s talk page.

In general, all nominated images should be treated with the same serious approach. Even if the image may be clearly below the base requirements from your point of view, your comments must never be abusive or degrading. Keep in mind that the nominated images are usually reviewed by a single user and that the nominator usually thinks the image is good enough to pass. The general rule above all is to be nice and encouraging!

Hallo miteinander, mein Englisch ist zu schwach, um mich exakt auszudrücken. Deshalb auf Deutsch: Ich stimme D-Kuru zu, dass kein Bild mit der Begründung "Insufficient quality" oder "Not sharp enough" abgelehnt werden darf. In jedem Fall sollte ein genauer Grund für die Ablehnung genannt werden. Darüber hinaus müssten meines Erachtens mindestens zwei weitere Meinungen eingeholt werden, bevor das "Decline" gesetzt wird. In einem Punkt bin ich allerdings nicht der gleichen Meinung wie D-Kuru: Ich glaube nicht, dass alle Unser, die ihre Bilder nominieren, selbst von der Qualität wirklich überzeugt sind. Oft sind es mehr oder minder misslungene "Knipsbildchen", die im Vorbeigehen gemacht wurden und hier als Qualitätsbild gelobt werden sollen. Trotzdem darf es keine beleidigenden Kommentare geben. Herzliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lothar, bei der Verpflichtung, eine kurze, nachvollziehbare Begründung bei einem Decline anzugeben, stimme ich dir völlig zu, aber hier bei QIC sollte es im Normalfall bei genau einem Vote bleiben, egal ob pro oder kontra. Wenn jemand mit dem Urteil nicht einverstanden ist, gibt es ja immer schon die Möglichkeit, zu widersprechen, also CR. Ein zusätzlicher Mechanismus, der erfordert, daß bei einem Decline mindestens drei Leute das unterstützen müßten, (während für ein "pro" weiterhin eine Stimme reichen würde), würde das QIC-Verfahren völlig auf den Kopf stellen. Oder willst du "Featured Quality Image Candidates" einführen? Dort nebenan haben wir ja genau solch ein Abstimmungsverfahren für jedes einzelne Bild, wenn auch mit anderen Zahlenwerten. --Smial (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While "Insufficient quality" is an insufficient rationale for declining a nomination and should therefore not count as a valid vote, "Not sharp enough" is a perfectly fine explanation, because it names the specific issue. And, of course, one vote (valid) is enough to decline or promote an image as long as nobody else objects to the assessment. Regarding D-Kurus specific suggestion: you have my support. --MB-one (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone. I just made some small copy edits to the proposed new language, purely to get rid of typos and such; I don't think any of them will be at all controversial. I support the change and agree on "insufficient quality" (not useful) vs. "not sharp enough" (clear). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Kuzel

It is reported that Manfred Kuzel, active user on QIC, has passed away. Condolences page on Wiki --A.Savin 18:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unassessed QI candidates

There are over 15K images in Category:Unassessed QI candidates (now including some of mine). Do they just languish there forever? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact yes. But take it easy, there are more urgent problems to be solved. --A.Savin 17:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you imagine I'm not at ease? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I've renominated some images over time. Some of the resubmissions received votes, others did not. Also, just something to keep in mind, if renominated images are promoted, a bot does not remove the "Unassessed QI candidates", so some of these may actually be categorized incorrectly. I had to remove the "Unassessed QI candidates" manually for images that later received votes. -Another Believer (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like most of the time an unassessed candidate should just be understood as declined. I think I've renominated something a couple times and had it be successful, but I chalk that up to the same borderline variation that results in an image being promoted by one person and declined by another. I would suggest just categorizing them as declined except for one thing: sometimes a reviewer leaves feedback about edits that could bring it up to QI, but those edits aren't made in 7 days (I've had some of these as well). In that case a renomination makes sense. Might just be easier to say "if the reasons a nomination failed have been addressed, it can be renominated" rather than maintain a separate "unassessed" category... — Rhododendrites talk |  02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Rhododendrites. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colour and black-and-white

And again the discussion about black-and-white and colour. A discussion at consensual reviews shows two problems:

  • Should we add a rule about nominating only colour and not the black-and-white version (or vice versa)?
  • Is it possible to have QI for more than one developed version of the same source?

Slightly differences in colours (saturation, contrast, crop, ...) are IMO no reason for uploading or nominating another versions. Larger differences are acceptable for uploading another version, but in the most cases they are not suitable for QI(C).

My opinion: A good black-and-white version can be QI (or QIC) too, even if the colour version is QI. But it shouldn't be a black-and-white just clicking on black-and-white in the development tool. It should be a photograph suitable for black-and-white and developed as good black-and-white image. IMO good black-and-white photographs should for example improve structure, improve contrast. If the colour version is QI, the black-and-white isn't QI automatically - and vice versa.

Any comments? Ideas? --XRay talk 07:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.
1. A second image from the same source may be awarded if it is a colour and black and white versions.
2. No automatic reward in any case, only after a nomination and positive reviews.
3. The valuable of the black and white version is highly recommended to be specified in the nomination. (increase contrast, remove emphasis on the secondary highly colored object, etc.).
4. Proposed new rule: two versions from the same source (colour and black and white) should be nominated together. Then we will see the significance and creative changes due to colour changes.
5. All these additional rules are not needed if only a black and white image is nominated.
-- George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Just to clarify: My point in the discussion was that one should not be able to nominate slightly different developments of the same shot, in order to simply get more QIs. I have noe problem accepting black/white photos as QIs in themselves. --Peulle (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The approach to animate photographers through QIC, to upload technically carefully created and edited photos, and thus to increase the general quality level in the illustration of Wikipedia, has long been lost in my opinion. Instead, this has become partly a second class FPC, partly a fierce fight for as many awards as possible, often fought hard and garnished with all kinds of dogmatism. In other words: Why on earth does someone need a QI medal for a second image version when the first one already has one? Apparently, some people only want to drive up some counters. -- Smial (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Usually no one needs QI for more than one version. A crop, slightly modifications or other derivates are not a reason for another QIC. Sometimes there are good black-and-white versions and there are only these two (different) ways of development, these one can be nominated as QIC too. Only a few photographs are suitable as good black-and-white images and these do not increase the number of QI(C) in a considerable way. There should be no general rejection of such images. QI should be a signal for better quality. And QI should be a way to help others to improve their photographs. Nothing more. Is this dogmatic? --XRay talk 16:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please, no, derivative works of a QI cannot be QI at the same time. That applies to all kind of works, B&W, crops, saturation, etc. A B&W version can IMHO only become QI if the original file isn't (and will not be nominated as such). Poco a poco (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Without prejudice to Poco's point of view, if we continue to allow B&W and color photos of the same motif, I don't see why they have to be nominated together, as long as the second nomination specifically mentions the other version in the file description on QIC, with a link to the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the ban is appropriate for the nomination of the same photo, but in black and white. I did not notice serious abuse of this type. -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, we get real photos from the authors, and in exchange we can give virtual rewards only. If you look at it from the side, then this exchange is reminiscent of trade with the natives (gold nuggets for glass beads). I do not want to offend anyone and i am not going to lower the value of the QI awards and others. However, i believe that we should not greatly limit the authors in their nominations. In the final review, we can always reject the nomination if a black and white photo is not interesting and does not add significance vs colour version. -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Thank you. That's a good proposal. --XRay talk 15:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+2. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About 5 nominations per day

I come from making 10 nominations but 5 have been declined for not having been done on different days. My question is, if I add 5 nominations at 23:50 hours and then another 5 at 00:05 hours in my country time, would that not count as 5 for each different day?. Thanks Wilfredor (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All systems, like counting nominations, are done on 'Wikipedia time'. You have to use that instead. With participants in every time zone, it is impossible to keep track of all users' "own" time. You can't expect a reviewer to track you down and see what time zone you live in at the moment and calculate when you made the nominations. How do we know where you are when you make the noms? Are you in Canada, Venezuela or Brazil? Also impossible if you are an anonymous user. And IF each user had their 'own' time, what would happen if they uploaded while they were traveling? If you make your 5 + 5 noms around wiki-time midnight everything is fine. Keep it simple. --Cart (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always interpreted "per day" to mean "per 24-hour period", although I wouldn't quibble if it turned out to be 23 hours. The point is not to swamp the nominations page when there are much older images awaiting review (cough!). Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, I'm thinking of modifying the automatic nominator gadget to add this validation Wilfredor (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And how will you make that visible to the reviewers on the QIC page when someone adds more than five noms according to their own 24 h cycle? --Cart (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing the contributions on the same page, it look like soo many requests to the api --Wilfredor (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest leaving 'as is', with manual control from users -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UTCLiveClock can be helpful. --Smial (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't use the nominator gadget. To be honest, I don't understand why we should change the way it is, I think it's all good. Everything on Wikipedia is running on UTC time. It's straightforward and easy to use and understand. Checking each individual nomination if there were 24 hours since the last nomination seems to be a little bit complicated. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. Charles (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily 10 candidates par day?

Hello everyone! During quarantine, maybe it would be a good idea to increase temporarily the number of candidates to 10 per day? I don't know about you but I'm very bored in this time, so it won't be a problem for me to check more candidates. Contrariwise, it will utilize my time effectively. Are you bored too? What do you think about this idea? Tournasol7 (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support We're not in the quarantine here in New Zealand but I fully support the proposal. I'd also encourage QI regulars who are quarantined to try to take QI of things that you have at home: food, kitchen items and so on. Take care everyone. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This limit was introduced for a good reason, and I don't see why it should be raised even temporarily. If you look at the candidates list, there are still plenty of unassessed nominations. If you processed those and still are bored, try categorization (just to name one example) -- the backlog is unimaginable... --A.Savin 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If still plenty of unassessed nominations, often these nominations have some problems that won't let you vote for. And I can try categorization, but It's boring for me too, it's good idea for 5 minutes...Tournasol7 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tightening the QI criteria

This is IMO a classic example of a QI. Good quality, and a nice presentation of subject.
Versus FP: the quality is not that important, the subject is presented in thought-provoking, imposing way.

Should we tighten the QI criteria? Some users nominate a lot of composition-wise questionable images, albeit "quality" is ok. Also, I don't like the fact that we may promote many images of the same subject. Ideas? QI should be about quality not quantity. —kallerna (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify things, I added some example images. —kallerna (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Same subject" isn't a criteria. Please have a look to VI. --XRay talk 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And please have a look too COM:IG. Composition is a QI criteria. But sometimes a good compositon is a matter of taste. --XRay talk 05:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the guidelines. I meant almost identical photos, sorry. Anyways, this is why I started this discussion: do others feel like we should raise the bar a little higher? I definitely think that we should, the question is how to quantify the criteria. —kallerna (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, and I do not mean the be rude, here are four promoted QIs from the same spot:
This is not definitely an extreme example, since all the compositions are quite different. The quality of the images is fine, but composition-wise not all of these should IMO be QIs. This is of course just my opinion. The discussion is about should the QIs be about distinguishable good images, or just about any snapshot with good DSLR. BTW it's perfect for the project that we upload a lot of photos. —kallerna (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the ideas with QIs is to provide editors with a good selection of high quality images to use. Since the purposes for which the images are used differ so much, it is good to have a wide selection of images that are "nearly the same". Tastes are different and the editor of a Wikivoyage article may not want the exact same shot as in several Wikipedias. Commons is like a Wiki-version of Getty, Shutterstock, Alamy, etc. and if you take a look at what such stock photo collections offer, you will find that they give their customers plenty of similar versions of photos on any subject. That is how a good image stock works. It's the same as with any other kind of product. To take a current example: Why do stores (normally) offer so many versions of toilet paper when they all serve the same purpose? Because people have slightly different tastes and preferences.
Even if the compo of some QIs are rather basic, they are still way, way, better than the hordes of photos taken with simple cameras or by inexperienced photographers here on this site. A DSLR is not something that most people have access to. Not so long ago I was asked to find photos of Houston that could be QIs. Even though it is a very large category, I could only find two that fit the QI criteria. So the QI bar is high enough IMO. --Cart (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing QI label for non-Commoner image

File:Apple_logo_black.svg is extracted directly from Apple and should not be eligible for QI. --17jiangz1 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apple_Computer_Logo_rainbow.svg is also from brandsoftheworld.com thus should not be eligible for QI. --17jiangz1 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QICBot failure

Bot failed today, after update of Candidates page, but before updating Recently Promoted with last day - no easy way to list what has been promoted. I have reverted the bot edition on Candidates page. I've checked and everything looks all right, but you may double-check also. -- Jakubhal 06:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QIC bot malfunction

Last night the bot processed some of the images correctly, except that the users were probably not notified on their talk page. Then, possibly starting with File:Pandion haliaetus with prey.jpg it just moved the images to Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted and to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 02 2020 without even adding the QI template. I shall add the templates manually. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot failure

QICbot stopped working today. I've reverted the candidate page. The bot will be run tomorrow (hopefully). --XRay talk 05:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, XRay, for the explanation – I was wondering what was going on. --Aristeas (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polarforskaren 14 June 2020 03.jpg

I don't care about this images or if it got promoted or not. But I'm a little worried about discussion from a QI point of view. QI has, imo, nothing to do with whether the motif is interesting, beautiful, or unique. I do not think the photographic quality in this picture is lower because the architecture can be perceived as boring*. And here, sharpness, exposure and resolution are above the requirements for QI.*I disagree, its a well-preserved example of 1930s functionalist architecture and part of an architecturally important area. But I think it's completely irrelevant for QI,--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear QI for me, QIC is not FPC-lite. I generally only decline for non-technical reasons if the composition is really atrocious or something. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Insufficient quality"

It wasn't a long time ago that we had a discussion here and agreed that this kind of uninformative reason for declining a photo shouldn't be used, but that an attempt should always be made to state what is insufficient. Yet I've seen a lot of backsliding on this. Just do a search through this page and you'll see a lot of "insufficient quality" reviews. Since we agreed no longer to do this, can we try to remember that and act accordingly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we are not going to get contributors to realise why their nominations are lacking unless we tell them why. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --George Chernilevsky talk 14:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1. “Insufficient quality” is an insufficient reason ;–). We must tell people what exactly is wrong with an image. --Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated MediaWiki:Gadget-QICvote.js so that it automatically prompts users to fill in a reason for declining. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is CA ?

Hi,

I often see the term "CA" : "CA should be removed" in my review. What is that ?

Thanks. --Touam (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CA is Chromatic aberration
fr:Aberration chromatique --George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! (et merci pour le français :-) ) --Touam (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photos to Wikimedia

I noticed that since several months, uploading images with greater size than 30-50 MB has become a problem if you don’t have high speed internet connections. My connections have a speed which rarely exceeds 2-3 Mb/s and the answer of the Wikimedia server is consistently:Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. I guess this is due to a timeout of the server. This is very annoying since most of my images, coming from a hi resolution camera, are way above 50 MB and I have to risize them with quality loss. Is there an alternative way to upload to Wikimedia? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try Commonist application -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can also try Commons:VicuñaUploader or Commons:Pattypan. I used the former for many years before I switched to the latter, which is a spreadsheet-based program that lets you edit the information at your leisure before uploading. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After some hard work to make Commonist run (I'm not a computer nerd) it gives the following message:Upload failed, connection reset by peer:socket write error. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found an other solution:Upload Wizard seems to work without a timeout --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially dubious assessment eligibility criteria

Greetings, I have noticed that the QI assessment eligibility criteria says "Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits,..." meaning that the reviewer should have account registered for at least 10 days and have made at least 50 edits before reviewing can be dubious.

  • It does not specify that whether the edits should be constructive or not (I assume they should be constructive).
  • It does not specify where the registration and edit should be (Any language of Wikipedia?).

Therefore, I request to make the criteria more detailed like "Any registered user whose Wikipedia accounts have at least 10 days and 50 good faith edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination."

Thanks--Navinsingh133 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Your idea is good, but there is an automatic counter. The counter can't count the quality of edits. --XRay talk 03:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the complications. So, the automatic counter determines if someone is eligible or not? Thanks for the explanation.--Navinsingh133 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know wether it will be checked automatically. May be. For your data please have a look to [1] --XRay talk 09:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structured data on quality images

As some of you might have noticed, I have been adding structured data to Quality images. Every quality image now has Commons quality assessment (P6731) set to Wikimedia Commons quality image (Q63348069). A robot runs every day to add this to new quality images. Other data is being added too. Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments/Structured data contains an easy overview that might be useful here too. You can now use this to query for images, for example map of quality images. Currently the guidelines have no mention of structured data. Maybe time to think about encouraging people to add structured data to newly nominated files? Multichill (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this information here, Multichill. I also wanted to add, that this initiative is the reason why you will in some cases see at the bottom of the page "strange" hidden categories you haven't seen before like "Quality images missing SDC source of file", "Quality images missing SDC copyright status", "Quality images missing SDC copyright license", "Quality images missing SDC depicts", "Quality images missing SDC creator" or "Quality images missing SDC inception". Regards, --Poco a poco (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: Thank you for bringing this up. For reference here is a link to a prior discussion Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_21#Structured_data_as_QI_criterium. IMO it is about time to introduce SDC into the images guidelines and QI criteria. --MB-one (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those mysterious categories are to track progress. I am slowly bringing down the numbers.
Last year I see some people opposed it. I would probably have considered it too early too. But now seems to be a good time to slowly introduce it. Maybe first start by adding statements to current candidates and recent quality images? So people will see what to add? That way people can slowly get used to it. Multichill (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions in languages other than English

Today I saw a comment asking for a description in English for a QI that had a description in Japanese - I think we should take this part of the image page requirements seriously: "It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description." I can understand that one might not be able to judge the accuracy of a description in a foreign language, but most descriptions can easily translated by machine translation nowadays. If a reviewer is too lazy to do this, he or she should not just put the burden back on the uploader. Not commenting or asking for a language that is accessible through machine translation in cases where that is missing is okay, but just telling people to create a description in English goes against the idea of knowledge equity on an international project. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QI guidelines

“ Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status”. What qualifies a ‘’Wikimedian’’ --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say someone who has an account on one of our projects and at least 1 edit. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations invisible

What happened? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. They're all gone. Can't see anything in the history tab either. Some kind of software glitch? --Peulle (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any error. Please try Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. --XRay talk 08:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a request to village pump. --XRay talk 08:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That link works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing obviously wrong with it. Weird. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Multichill (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declining nominations because uploader has not been seen making reviews

I saw someone rejecting several nominations on the grounds that they did not see the uploader making reviews - there is a recommendation to do this, but I think rejecting nominations over this recommendation is going a bit too far. What do others think? --Kritzolina (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I feel qualified to nominate images when I think they're of sufficient quality, but I do not feel comfortable reviewing images when I know there are people much more qualified to assess than me. I do not believe reviewing should be required for submitting. -Another Believer (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Moroder. It doesn't look like he is declining based on reviews, but making requests of nominators to do some reviews. That seems harmless, but shouldn't be made out to seem required, of course. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: are you sure? Looks quite pointy to me. Multichill (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am clearly not sure. :) Was not looking at that section. Strongly disagree with that as a reason to oppose. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not promote images created by non-Commoners as Quality images?

I nominated a few images from The Met and later learned that there is a rule here which states that: Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible.

So, basically if a non-commoners digitizes an image and someone else uploads it on Commons, then it's not eligible to be nominated for QI. This seems pretty irrational to me. Should this be changed? --Satdeep Gill (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't change.
The QI Award was created to reward Wikipedians who create quality content themselves. For other cases, you can use FP and VI nominations. -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found that completely ridiculous. --El Grafo (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondered - where is the definition of Wikimedian here? If someone digitized a free work of art and allowed e.g. me or Satdeep to upload this to commons and sent an OTRS ticket to prove it - couldn't we call them Wikimedians? Or if someone uploaded their images to Flickr under an free licence and notified one of us that this could be good content for commons - are they not also in a way contributing? --Kritzolina (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data protection at number plates

Just a question in general: Is it OK to show number plates and other private data in nominated pictures? When I nominated own images I usually blurred them in terms of data protection.--Augustgeyler (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very good and very difficult question. There is no clear answer; on the contrary, there have been contra votes on photos because the photographer had blurred number plates or faces of people. (This is why I have personally stopped to blur faces or number plates in my photos; and I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation will help me to pay an excellent defence lawyer if some day somebody takes me to court for publishing a photo that shows his/her face.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the german situation Ralf Roletschek begun this document: https://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Fotorechte_DACH --XRay talk 08:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Augustgeyler: I have uploaded many photos of motor vehicles, and I generally blank-out or otherwise disguise the number plates (by faking them for example like here). Most of them have become 'Quality' and/or 'Valued' images. I found that blanking could lead to rejection for Quality Image nominations, which is why I started to fake them instead.
The reason I do it is not only for privacy protection reasons, but more importantly to guard against number plate cloning which is a serious problem in some countries (where it is done to avoid speeding tickets and fool other ANPR uses, for example). These, I think, are compelling common courtesy and moral considerations rather than legal or Commons policy reasons why number plates should not normally be revealed. I do make exceptions for famous or unique vehicles, or vehicles in museums. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should be much more careful with protecting the privacy of others when we upload pictures and would welcome blurring of all data for QIs. --Kritzolina (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn ich bei QIC ein manipuliertes Nummernschild sehe, gibts dafür von mir ein Kontra. Es gibt (außer vielleicht in der Schweiz) keinen Grund, Nummernschilder unkenntlich zu machen oder anderwertig zu manipulieren. Manche sind dazu übergegangen, Nummernschilder zu "fälschen", also eine andere Buchstaben/Ziffernkombination zu verwenden. Siehe auch ausführlich: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Ralf_Roletschek/Kennzeichen_verpixeln --Ralf Roletschek 11:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ralf Roletschek: [mit Google übersetzen] ich verkleide Nummernschilder, um die Besitzer vor dem Klonen von Nummernschildern zu schützen. In Großbritannien suchen Kriminelle im Internet nach Bildern von Autos, die denen ähneln, die sie gestohlen haben, und kopieren die Nummernschilder darauf. Auf diese Weise erregen sie keine polizeiliche Aufmerksamkeit, wenn sie es auf der Straße verwenden. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Google-Translate] You are doing very well too, your fakes are not recognized. --Ralf Roletschek 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_23&oldid=509933922"