Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Self-approval here and on VIC

I see that @Spurzem: uploads his updates for nominated images and at the same time votes for the new uploaded versions here and on VIC. It was done for two my images, next two on VIC I withdrawn myself to avoid ethically dubious practice. Now I see the same with File:Irschenberger Str. 7 St. Korbinian Dettendorf Bad Feilnbach-1.jpg. I think that voting for new version of image by the user who have edited and uploaded it should not be acceptable here and on VIC as for QIC and VIC only one vote is enough to be promoted, many images are reviewed by only one user, and we all do like the things we do ourselves. --LexKurochkin (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the nomination. But it's a license violation, the name of the editor is missing at the attribution. --XRay 💬 07:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, IMO nomination and review of one of the authors is not possible. --XRay 💬 08:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

From my point of view someone who is editing a nominated image can't be the reviewer of it at the same time. August Geyler (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Marking images as quality before final review outcome

I've just noticed that user Aboubacarkhoraa marks its nominated images as quality as soon as somebody writes a positive review for them (example - there is more). @Aboubacarkhoraa: you cannot do that. There are usually about three days between reviewing and marking the picture as quality by the bot. The reason for this delay is for anybody who disagrees with the first review to start the discussion. Please refrain from such actions and remove the quality categories from pictures whose reviews have not yet been concluded. -- Jakubhal 08:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Smartphone images

Colleagues, we have many discussions on smartphone images created by the simple fact that all the smartphones (as of May 2023) optically and algorithmically are made for different purpose, and thus create images unlikely to be a QI. I propose to add a chapter to Image guidelines explaining the issue from technical point of view. I can try to write it myself, but before doing so (as Guidelines is important and frequently used page) I would like to see opinions of Wikimedian photographers.
@Augustgeyler: @Jakubhal: @Spurzem: @Ikan Kekek:
-- LexKurochkin (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Your statement sounds very sweeping. Sorry, if I say it so directly. I don't see why the guidelines should be supplemented with a note for the technical device with which the pictures were taken. Already today, even smartphones produce images that are quite QI level. With some smartphones you can write and use RAW files too. We do not know what will come in the future. In my opinion, you should judge the image and not the technical device with which they were made. Maybe it's just the individual experience everyone has had in the field of photography. Or a section is added that deals with the technical device (camera) in general. Technical limitations do not only exist for smartphones, but for example also for simple compact cameras or action cams, for example. --XRay 💬 09:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Smartphone cameras have come a long way, and the current small sensor/optics technology and computational photography algorithms produce remarkable results. These ubiquitous devices can be an important source for quality images for Commons, one that I think we should promote rather than restrict. I share LexKurochkin's frustration that default cameraphone settings are often detrimental to quality (e.g., oversharpening, gaudy colours) but, as XRay mentioned, those can often be circumvented by shooting in Raw. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to offend anyone, but it often depends on the knowledge of the person using the camera or smartphone. Too often nowadays you only know the smartphone, the pictures also look great on the smartphone display, but still the quality is insufficient. --XRay 💬 09:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with XRay that we shouldn't base the value of a photograph on what kind of camera it was taken. For example, it must not say: The basic requirement is the recording with a Hasselblad X1D or a similar camera and a file size of at least 50 MB. Rather, in contrast to the current method, the image should be evaluated. However, I notice that the composition of the picture is currently of secondary importance. If a building is sharp, the lines are absolutely vertical and the picture was not taken with a smartphone, then it is a QI. But can that be the point? Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe that photos should be judged independently of the equipment and the author based on the quality of the photo itself. At the same time, I am very much against the special treatment of smartphone users. The same rules should apply to all photographs. It should not be easier for people taking smartphone photos to get the QI stamp because they have been submitting photos for weeks, so they deserve that "finally." If a photo has a technical defect that would cause it to be rejected when taken with an SLR camera, then so should be for smartphone cameras. Yes, this means getting a QI with a smartphone will be harder, but it is still possible. We've seen pictures here that were REALLY quality and were taken with smartphones. -- Jakubhal 10:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see I should explain my intentions and reasons behind it. Actually, I (as well as many people here) tried just judging an image and not the technical device. The problem is, if some user actively uses smartphone to create images, he or she receives many consecutive decline votes on the same grounds like low level of detail and overprocessing. It is discouraging, frustrating and really might look like the user is opposed, not just his/her smartphone. On the over hand a smartphone user typically has not too many options to change something, and, hence, just cannot improve his/her images. That's why I think we need the chapter for smartphones. Julesvernex2 and Jakubhal are right, smartphone cameras have come a long way of evolution. Several years ago smartphone QI was just impossible. Now it is possible, yes, we have smartphone QIs, but it is possible not for every smartphone (actually only a few models are technically capable to produce quality images) and the probability is rather low. Even worse, a user just cannot influence the process on many models working as just "point and click" device. I have no intention to prohibit smartphone images for QIC and even FP, of course not. My intention is to create a warning about the current state of this technology and to explain what happens and why technically (small lens, densely packed pixels on small sensor, aggressive processing algorithms, camera JPEGs already overprocessed and thus hard to be improved even in powerful editors like Photoshop, GIMP, RawTherapy). And provide some hints on what can be done to improve images (taking in RAW, attention to lighting, attention to positioning smartphone vertically to avoid strong perspective corrections). LexKurochkin (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine to include a statement about why it is harder to get a QI from a cellphone than from an SLR and what can be done to increase the chances, as much can be done with post-processing software in addition to before the photo is shot. I totally agree that it is not right to judge cellphone pictures differently from those taken with SLRs; of course, it's totally reasonable to be impressed with very good photos that were taken with cellphones, but the reason to vote for a cellphone pic is that it's good enough, based on the criteria we use to judge all images. I also agree that if anyone is voting to promote an image taken by someone just because their images have been rejected repeatedly, that's not a good reason, but that sounds to me like a caricature. I would assume the reason they vote to promote that image is that they see what they consider adequate improvement in its quality, whereas someone who might impugn their motives by thinking that the support vote was just out of pity disagrees that it is good enough. We have seen a number of examples of users whose work was always voted down for a while and then improved enough so that it is sometimes promoted. Sometimes, they got new equipment, but other times, only their technique, post-processing and perhaps composition improved. I'm blanking on screen names right now, but all of us can probably think of examples. I should add that if remarks about the limitations of cellphones are added, we should be prepared to remove or edit them when new cellphones with fantastic cameras come out, because I definitely foresee that happening. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Penne Arrabbiata.jpg was just voted down in CR. I'm beginning to think that User:Spurzem is right that, if I am accurately describing his remarks in CR threads on pictures of the Seattle Botanical Gardens and such by User:Another Believer (some of which I opposed and some of which I supported), there is discrimination against cellphone pics because they're cellphone pics, or that too many QIC voters have decided that 100% sharpness of the smallest details at resolution on the entire picture frame is needed for a photo to be of quality. Irrespective of our feelings on individual nominations, we should be careful, lest we intentionally or unintentionally create class-based barriers for people to be acknowledged to have taken good pictures with their cellphones and require them to buy expensive DSLRs to have a chance to get this acknowledgement. I definitely don't want us to go the other way and have lower standards for cellphone pics because they were taken with cellphones, but is the point of photography really to document everything with perfect sharpness all the time in the minutest details? I don't think that's one of the criteria for quality images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I've seen some mobile phone pictures promoted recently (e.g. File:39 Bulevardul Dacia, Bucharest (02).jpg, File:5 Piața Romană, Bucharest (57).jpg), I remember at least two that I voted for in recent days. I don't see any special discrimination against cell phones. I haven't changed my mind. I still think it's wrong to look for minor errors in some photos but vote for photos with details mutilated by poor cellphone settings/software simultaneously. As for the cases you have mentioned, I've seen many photos of that user. Almost all of them have the same problem with lost details, especially visible on surfaces where these details were expected - grass, bushes, sand (but not much on the walls, etc.). Sorry, but even if the persistent user nominates the pictures with the same flaw for weeks, it is not a reason to treat them differently. I believe every picture should be reviewed independently. As for the penne picture, I've seen it, and I didn't like the crop, so I refrained from voting. In my opinion, the details were so-so, but with a really good composition, I would vote to promote it. ---- Jakubhal 10:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree that each photo should be judged individually, but I want everyone to consider whether they are making it impossible or almost impossible for cellphone pics that are not 100% sharp everywhere to get their votes. In your case, the answer is no, but I'm a lot less sure about that being universally true. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Unexpected stop of QICbot

Today the QICtop stopped unexpected. Sorry, I can't restart the bot. But the bot created the archive page. --XRay 💬 05:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Same today, archive -- Jakubhal 09:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jakubhal It seems to be working now, see Special:Contributions/QICbot. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Mdaniels5757: I'm not sure what you're making me look at. The last edit is from this morning when QICBot didn't finish the job. It didn't add QualityImages tags and stopped while categorizing unreviewed images. -- Jakubhal 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I misunderstood that. Pinging Dschwen (talk · contribs) and Mike Peel as bot owners. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. It looks like there were two days where it didn't work properly. Looking at the errors, this is what happened:

• 20 May: pywikibot.exceptions.InvalidTitleError: 'Eckersdorf OT Schanz.JPG>' contains illegal char(s) '>'
• 23 May: pywikibot.exceptions.CascadeLockedPageError: Page [[commons:File:Moma (Parablennius pilicornis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2022-07-29, DD 56.jpg]] is locked due to cascading protection.

So two different issues, but related. Probably it needs try/except statements adding, so an error on one image doesn't stop the bot working through the rest. I'll have a look through the code soon to see what can be done there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still some promoted QIs in the Archives May 23 2023 which have not been marked as QIs yet.--KaiBorgeest (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There were quite a lot of them. I tagged them manually. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still a couple of pictures that were not tagged, and I'm unsure how to tag them. Would anyone mind giving some source or guide about how I can add it manually ?--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Just addd the template {{QualityImage}} below the categories. That is what QICbot does. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Minimum size for Quality images candidates

I've been away from this a few years. As of a few years ago there were discussions on the minimum size that a quality or a valued image was going to be. What is the minimum as I have a Nikon D3400 and a Nikon D5600 (see my userpage for more information). Thought I'd ask before uploading new images so I can check before uploading. Adamdaley (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Adamdaley: it is described here. We haven't been able to move on in the minimum resolution discussion, so we keep the standard from 15 years ago. --Poco a poco (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

But that is only half the truth. After all, this limit is now only meant as a hard limit when shots were taken under difficult conditions. For a long time there has been the addition that reviewers are allowed to demand a higher resolution for "easy to photograph" subjects. This is exactly the reason for my A4 quirk, because for a decent photo in this size and at "normal" viewing distance you need about 6 MPixels. More is bonus. I could also get along with the rule that the shorter edge of the image should have at least 2000 pixels. For a square, that would be only 4 Mpixels, but I could live with that. Suggestions or ideas to always require full sensor resolution I strictly reject, because it doesn't take into account that there are elementary physical optical laws that simply make it impossible to produce pixel sharp images on high resolution sensors under all circumstances. --Smial (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

The truth is what I read in the guidelines. What you say makes sense, but with the guidelines in the hand anybody can rebut those arguments and affirm that such an argument is not valid to reject an image. If there is consensus about that we should modify the guidelines. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If I vote  Oppose because I think, resolution is too low for QI, this vote is valid, even if the image has more than 2 Mpixels. If I vote  Support, though an image is somewhat (reasonable) downscaled, or if a very high-resolution image shows some weaknesses at pixel level, this is also a valid vote and within "the rules". After all, I usually give quite detailed reasons for my opinion, especially when I differ from the majority opinion. I see the guidelines as a guide for inexperienced photographers or evaluators. I observe them as a matter of principle, but in individual cases I take the liberty of interpreting them flexibly. --Smial (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Coordinates on Images

It is a "necessity" to have Coordinates on Images for QI images? As I am going away on the July 21st and will be back on July 25th. I've just noticed today that my GPS for my camera can be detrimental and not log the Coordinates for an image. Adamdaley (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I find coordinates very useful in most cases, but I would not consider them absolutely necessary if the location has been sufficiently described elsewhere. In some cases, exact coordinates can also have very undesirable side effects, for example when taking photos at locations of rare plants in nature reserves. Experience shows that such locations, when they become known, are readily destroyed by self-appointed "nature lovers". --Smial (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

QI Vote stopped working

anyone else with this problem? Grunpfnul (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Grunpfnul: Same here, it's work in progress, I guess. Look at this. Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Wilfredor: or else this should be raised at phab:. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Raised at phab:T341736. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

With many thanks to @ABreault (WMF): it looks like it's working again now! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For anybody watching, please note that a change was made earlier this week to how media is rendered by MediaWiki's parser, which, given the nature of commonswiki, might have an outsized effect here. If you notice any other breakage, don't hesitate to ping me.

And see mw:Parsoid/Parser_Unification/Media_structure/FAQ ABreault (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Since yesterday, QICvote has stopped working for me. Meantime, I see that there are people who are still using this tool for reviewing. Can I do something to fix it in my browser? I was trying to remove cached files, but it didn't work. -- Jakubhal 06:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I have still problems with the voting tool. It doesn't work. May be the reason is my interface "Vector (2022)". --XRay 💬 09:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I use Vector (2010) but also tried already Vector (2022) and Book. The tool does not work for me with any of them. -- Jakubhal 09:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@ABreault (WMF): can you help? ---- Jakubhal 11:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have spontaneously started working again? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it works now, let's see for how long Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Exif data

Since a few days my photos processed with Adobe Photoshop are missing the EXIF data, even if I can see them on Photoshop. Someone in the community can help me? Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Moroder Did you check the files with another tool (e. g. IrfanView) after saving in Photoshop? Maybe the Exif data was pushed into a sidecar file (.xmp or similar) by Photoshop and wasn't saved in the main image file for some reason. MB-one (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you are right. I noticed that PS produces a .xmp file. What can I do with it and why can'it keep the data as before? Thanks Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I found out that if I save with the option "save as a copy" the EXIF data are maintained --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The XMP File will keep the options and values you choose while editing it with camera raw - so if you open the raw again, you will see and keep your edits.Grunpfnul (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've only started to take .raw photos with the attached GPS Coordinates creator. I never had the experiene or whatever you call it to take just "raw" photos until recently when I was away in rural New South Wales. Just hoped that they turn out nicely. When I edited my photo of the "Big Bogan and Rusty", all information stayed with the file as I deleted the .xmp file. AdamDaleyAUS (talk) 06:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Promotion {{{2}}}

I have seen over the past months many visible errors (the same error over and over) in the template, I've made these two derivative images of a QI to demonstrate the fix. It's not so difficult and it's fast.

The solution to this problem is adding in |.
多多123 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Signature problems

My signature on September 19th was not substituted and I don't know how to fix it. Discostu (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it. Best wishes --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Display images correctly

There seems to be a problem displaying some images correctly. For example this one File:Gnisvärd_strandkyrka_October_2023_01.jpg. When I open the original file on my computer, or download the image from Commons and open, it's sharp. But here it looks very blurry ArildV (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Have you checked whether there is any difference between the original file and the downloaded file? I just compared one of my uploaded files (renamed to d.jpg) with the original one (renamed to o.jpg) with the old DOS command "fc /b d.jpg o.jpg" which is still available from the Windows command line (CMD.EXE). No difference was found. Of course, all downsized versions look sharper. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have compared:

The original raw-file (sharp in full resolution)

My Jpg-file I uploaded here on my computer (sharp in full resolution)

The file in full resolution here (looks very blurry)

The full resolution file I downloaded from Commons (sharp in full resolution).

--ArildV (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

O.k., so the issue is that your browser renders the image in a manner different from some unspecified other program on your specific monitor, not that these are different images. This might be difficult. I just had a look at the image in the Windows photo viewer and in Firefox and I cannot see much difference, except that the photo viewer seems to have very slightly warmer colors. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppet terror

Currently we have daily new socks by Livio, including dormant accounts (=accounts that were registered months ago, but just recently started to edit). Such as Columnsss, 1municipio, RoccaCalascio, WikiEuropian, etc. pp.

In future, please do not promote!!! their noms, instead, please report them on COM:ANU or just let me know. Of course it's not like any new user from Italy is automatically a suspected Livio sock, but meanwhile many of us should be able to run a little duck test, or at least know the issue and what it is about... --A.Savin 11:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

QICvote problems again?

Hi all, I'm having problems getting QICvote to save votes again, is anyone else having the same issue? I see some votes are still getting through somehow. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: I've been having this issue since August now. 多多123 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For me, it works most of the time, but sometimes it does not, and I have to switch to the manual edit. I have this problem at least once every two or three days. ---- Jakubhal 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been experiencing the same. I have tried different browsers, different OS, different hardware as a work around but it didn't make any difference. I have had the same issues in May and it seems to be more common at a later stage of the day --Virtual-Pano (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Same for me since a few days. --Velvet (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Haven't used this for a while and didn't work for me now. Using Chrome, the Confirm reviews button failed to save the reviews. I had to do it manually. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've still have problems with QICvote and Google Chrome. It simply does not work. Nothing happens clicking on "confirm". --XRay 💬 11:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I just tried clicking on "confirm" at Commons:Quality images candidates and it works. But same at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list and it does not work. --XRay 💬 12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be working OK for me in Firefox on a Mac. I wonder if it could somehow be linked to the length of the page (since the page size is currently running long due to the backlog), or bugs with individual images, somehow? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this has to do with the filename normalization, expanded on in phab:T341736#9247790

Around the time this thread was started,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&oldid=803175660&veaction=editsource

I see,

File:Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport Motorworld Munich 1X7A0072.jpg|

File:NIO EL7 Motorworld Munich 1X7A0041.jpg|

- Arlolra (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit improves the situation,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGadget-QICvote.js&diff=811640316&oldid=811029147 Arlolra (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Had that issue today. Even tried again and failed again. Had to enter reviews manually. I filtered for "To Review" and reviewed the remaining October 18 nominations. Plozessor (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

And again and again ... (Project Scope, Wikipedia, …)

Images here at the QIC are evaluated with arguments that refer to a use at Wikipedia. But this main use is neither Project scope nor covered by the guide lines here. On the one hand the Wikimedia world is much bigger (see [1]) and on the other hand the images are also available for use outside the Wikimedia world. Both is stated in the Project scope, the use outside the Wikimedia world is even mentioned first. Also, the term "educational" is understood very narrowly by some reviewers, but it is intended to be very broad - it is also in the scope. A look at the various projects shows that images are used in many different ways, not only for clearly documentary purposes. So may I call on you to broaden your view and let the images speak for themselves? That's what I like to do. Besides, I care a lot about photography and maybe I can also encourage people to take creative pictures - even if the results are not necessarily QI-ready. Take a look at en:Abstract photography or en:Intentional camera movement or en:Minimalist photography as an example. --XRay 💬 15:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment However, QIC is not a competition for medals for creativity and implementation of artistic ideas, but was originally and primarily designed to promote the creation of a pool of photos that meet certain basic technical and design requirements so that they can be used to adequately illustrate Wikipedia articles, as well as to support less experienced photographers in doing so. The project dates back to a time when photos with a file size of more than 100kB were only just being allowed and many Wikipedia articles either had no images at all or very bad ones. The fact that the project has developed into a pixel-peeping show on the one hand and a badge competition on the other is another matter. For creative ideas there is always FPC, for technically possibly not so perfect but unique or unrepeatable shots there are the "valuable pictures". I don't see the need to change the focus of QIC. --Smial (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Just by the way: At the FPC some reviewers show a similar behavior as here. Artistic ideas have a hard time there, too. I can only support the improvement of quality in general. Besides, the seals like QI offer a certain protection against renaming or so-called improvements with simultaneous ignorance of the license rules - but no absolute protection. Nevertheless, we should encourage photographic creativity, even if it does not fit into FP, QI or VI. --XRay 💬 19:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• On a relative basis though, artistic expression is more encouraged at Commons FPC than Enwiki FPC, and that is by design. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• It's good to know the history of QI as having to do with providing technically good photos for Wikipedia, but I don't think we should continue to be overly influenced by that. Many photos are within the scope of other projects, such as Wikivoyage, or are just plain examples of good photography (which is also within the scope of Wikipedia and presumably Wikiversity and so forth), and while technical competence is emphasized at QIC, we are not looking for the best exemplar of a scope for online articles here - that's for COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

How to treat good pictures made with poor cameras (= smartphones)

Being quite new to QI, I noticed that there are several nominations where the photographer did everything right, but still the picture is of borderline quality because it was taken with a smartphone. So, there is a good composition, lighting was good, there are no too dark spots or blowouts, but the picture has all the typical quality issues of smartphone pictures, like artifacts from JPG compression, signs of significant noise reduction, signs of artificial sharpening (with some new phones even signs of AI processing) and the like. How we treat those images? Are they QI because the photographer provided the maximum quality possible with the camera? Or are they not QI because a proper camera is a requirement for QI? --Plozessor (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The camera alone is not a criterion. It's the picture that counts. Pictures taken with smartphones have a good chance of being rejected because the resulting images are technically poor. However, there are situations in which even pictures taken with smartphones are good enough. On the one hand, technology is advancing, on the other hand, pictures are easier to take in some lighting situations. --XRay 💬 06:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's the best possible quality from the camera, and I regularly get QIs passed that are taken from a smart phone. That does still require some reconfiguration of the smart phone to reduce the effects you mention, though (on iPhones, disable 'Smart HDR' at least) - and good lighting conditions etc. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Bot problems

Today some of my photographs were promoted by the bot. But: The bot forgot to remove the candidates from QI candidates. --XRay 💬 10:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dschwen @Mike Peel FYI. Any idea what happend? MB-one (talk) 11:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Which files? Leave them there, and let's see if the bot archives them tomorrow? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This file for example: File:Kreta (GR), Amnatos, Kloster Arkadi -- 2023 -- 8645.jpg. I've removed the file, because it's in the todays archive. Just the removing was missing. --XRay 💬 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The bot did not extract anything from the candidate list. My promoted images are also still there. I am going to remove them as well. But we might run into some trouble tomorrow if the bot still does not remove the images or promotes the same images once more and moves them to the list of recently promoted images. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, checking the bot log, it says "write to 'b'Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list'' seems to have failed" - it tried a bunch of times then gave up. It could have been a server glitch, or an edit conflict (I see there was another edit the exact same minute), or possibly a blacklisted URL might have got into the page? If it happens again tomorrow, I'll investigate more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it ran OK today, so it was just a temporary glitch. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Promoted images send to discuss

From what I see, two of the images that have been promoted (as the 2 days period passed) but remained in the candidates page because of the bot problem have been sent to discuss. --C messier (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@C messier: I suggest procedurally closing them as promoted, due to the bot issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Done (and thanks @Peulle: for partially doing this, but the bot needs 'Nomination' to change to 'Promote' as well, and I thought it was clearer if I explained a bit of what happened in the closing message, hope that's OK.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

👍 --Peulle (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

How does one nominate images?

I'd like to find out how I can nominate images here. I have tried it in the past, but I wasn't really successful. I have requested advice form an editor who suggested to copy paste former nominations and replace the former filename with my filename...I have tried it now just recently but now not even my signature shows up. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Use Help:Gadget-QInominator--ArildV (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I had activaded it, but with this I also don't understand how I can nominate. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Just go to the page with the image which you wish to nominate, just e.g. File:Gotland Grand National October 2023 24.jpg. If the gadget is active and the image is not a QI yet, you should see a tiny green QI icon above your photo with a hyperlink "Nominate this image for QI". Click onto it, then edit the text that appears (which is usually too much) and click o.k. Then go to Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, pick the section for the current day, e.g. Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#November_13,_2023 (today), click onto the "Edit" link and wait a short while. Then click onto the green banner that says "Click here to insert your stored nomination". Then just go to the bottom of the page and click onto "Publish Changes" (or, if you are cautious, first onto "Show Preview", just as for any other edit). Of course, the text may be different for language settings other than English. Does this work or what is the problem? Otherwise, you could just ignore the gadget and copy and paste an existing entry in the source view, replace everything with the proper content and publish the changes. This is much less convenient, but still good enough. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed reply. I believe you use the Vector 2010, because with that skin your explanation makes really sense as the days appear separately at the beginning. I use the Vector 2022, so I initially had some difficulties in following your explanation. But, also with the Vector 2010 skin it wasn't possible for me to nominate. Thanks a lot for your time, but I believe the energy field (destiny) doesn't want me to nominate images yet. Or take part in the voting process, which isn't possible for me either. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right about me using the legacy Vector 2010, which is still the default appearance. Have you activated QINominator and QICVote in your preferences (they can be found under the "Gadgets" tab, somewhere near the bottom)? Or where in the process did you fail? By the way, I just deactivated QICVote in my preferences because I haven't used it for ages. I still do not understand why there are problems with regular signatures on Commons:Quality images candidates in some cases. If this happens, logging out, clearing the cache and trying again after a while might be a good idea. But because I still don't know the cause of this annoying bug, I am not sure at all. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extracted images (origin already QI)

I find it difficult to decide: File:Bronze casting at Kunstgießerei München 01 - cropped.jpg. The picture in itself is definitely a QI. But it is a extracted image of a photograph which is already a QI. With different development paths (such as color and black and white), the consensus so far is that both images can become QI. However, this is much more difficult with cropped images. It doesn't really matter and you should consider each image on its own merits, but I could imagine that someone might come along and make several extactions from one image and want to have them all rated. Where should we draw the line, or do we not draw a line at all? To be honest, I'm at a bit of a loss. --XRay 💬 14:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Radomianin: As I can't think of a sensible solution, I've opened a discussion here. --XRay 💬 14:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dear XRay, thank you for starting the discussion. It is a good way to get a consensus within the community to have a reference that colleagues can refer to in the future for similar nominations. Thanks again and best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• For some pictures it can make sense to have two crops in Commons, say, a building with its surroundings and the building alone. In such cases, basically when the variants have different subjects, I see no issues with nominating both for QI. This does not apply to just differently cropped versions of the same subject (church with all surroundings, church with nearer surroundings, church with nearest surroundings, or boat in front of sunset non-cropped, boat in front of sunset slightly cropped, boat in front of sunset more cropped, boat in front of sunset heavily cropped). --Plozessor (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dear Plozessor, thank you very much for your detailed statement, with which I agree. But what about images that, as in this particular case, are not just an extract, but have been additionally processed to eliminate technical imperfections? In this case, I edited the noise, sharpness, and tonal value to meet the strict requirements of the FPC nomination. The crop was chosen solely for compositional reasons, as I personally liked it better than the overall view of the original. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Radomianin I understood that such cases ("different development paths") are accepted anyway (which is why I'm supporting the picture in question), and the discussion is purely about differently cropped but otherwise fully identical images. Plozessor (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your quick response and further explanation regarding this particular case. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear colleagues @XRay and Plozessor: The CR conversation is now over in favor of this discussion (2 – 4 ), and I would like to record the result here for documentation purposes for future questions of a similar nature: Consensus review result

Thanks for the constructive discussion and best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

QI or not QI?

I'd searched with insource:/Category:Quality images/ -incategory:"Quality images" and found over 13.000 images declared as QI, but not in category Category:Quality images. A few of them are using the template {{Igen}}, which does not add the image to Category:Quality images. May be a mistake. But there are a lot of images in QI category by self declaration. What to do? --XRay 💬 08:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My very first sample in this query was a photo that was awarded at QIC (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&oldid=259495702), but someone deleted the QI template in the file description, for whatever reason. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFitzrovia_Chapel_2017-09-17-7.jpg&diff=647606132&oldid=647341991). No idea how to find and fix such cases automatically. --Smial (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Updating bot run environment

Hi all, I'm upgrading QICbot's running environment at the moment, due to phab:T319982. It will run an additional time shortly to make sure it's migrated over OK, after that it should continue running daily as usual. Please let me know if you spot anything unusual. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Test run completed, it seems to run OK with the new environment. Let's see if the cron works OK tomorrow. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cron seemed to work as scheduled, hopefully it will continue that way. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

unwanted text added by the QI gadget

Hi, Would it be possible to fix the gadget, so that it doesn't add unwanted text, i.e. [2]? Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it was done with the gadget? I tried to nominate File:Corliss–Brackett House.jpg once again with Help:Gadget-QInominator (I suppose this is what you mean by “the gadget”?), and the inserted text was

File:Corliss–Brackett_House.jpg|{{/Nomination|The Corliss–Brackett House in College Hill, Providence, Rhode Island. The house is owned by Brown University and used by the school's Department of Philosophy. By [[User:Filetime]] --~~~~|}}

without any unwanted text. As far as I see, neither any parts of the gadget nor the file description page were edited in the past 24 hours. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

This definitely is the gadget, I regularily delete this "I, the copyrightholder ... ". I think it only happens with self-nominations, but I might be wrong. Kritzolina (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is inserted depending on the file description syntax. It happens for most files I nominate, including files by others, but not all. Yann (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Bot error today

It looks like someone commented out a nomination, which does not work - it hid the nomination from the page but the bot still tried to process it, and promptly failed with "CRITICAL: Exiting due to uncaught exception InvalidTitleError: '<!-- File:ISRAEL October 7, 2023.jpg' contains illegal char(s) '<" . Will try to recover the run... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, odd that it's now archived the latest nominations that were older than 2 days, but not the ones I copied back onto the page. Will try to figure this out shortly... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

All sorted now. The trick was to remove the ".." the bot was adding into "../Promotion" and the like. Please let me know if anyone spots any remaining issues. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Relax the 5 nominations per day rule this coming week?

I'm just wondering if it would be worth relaxing the 5 nominations per day rule for the next week, since it's vacations so people might have more time to put into this process? I think we're currently at a relatively low number of nominations waiting for review at the moment. Maybe worth trying 10/day for a few days and seeing how it goes? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose If we have low number of nominations, why should we increase the number of nominations? --XRay 💬 12:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me, where your nominations are, I'll nominate some of them. --XRay 💬 12:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Just a hint. Most of the filenames of your last uploads should be better. They should be good for QI. BTW: Some people will think your photos should be the first in a category, because they begin with "At". Same as people have filenames starting with a date. --XRay 💬 12:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My feeling was that reviewers (including myself) might have more time in the coming week. I wasn't asking (just) for me, but because I've seen others complaining about the limitation. BTW, I prefer putting time into things like categorisation, rather than filenames that just complicate my workflow. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Most of the filenames of your last uploads should be better.

Just stumbled across that statement and yes, this applies to several nominators actually. A bit exaggerated, they were in Greece, photographed temples and statues and beaches and whatnot, and all the pictures are just named "In Greece 0001" to "In Greece 2712".

About the initial question, agree, nominators are on vacation but so are reviewers, no need to change the rule. --Plozessor (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@XRay: I've set up User:Mike Peel/QI in case you want to look through my pending nominations. It is quite small compared to Category:QI candidates by User:Poco a poco, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

First photos nominated.I think I"ll nominate some of Diego's photos too. --XRay 💬 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Reviewers are also on holiday. Yann (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Quality now and then...

Today I archived the "quality pictures" of automobiles from the year 2023. Then I took a quick look at the 2014 archive. Back then, there were practically no photos with any parking lot clutter or other distracting stuff in the background. That has changed a lot. But well, today we have 24++ Mpixels, that MUST be better... --Smial (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your summary is impressive. I also noticed the surroundings, but it is even clearer in comparison. Most of the older photos also have more border, a lot of the current ones are very heavily cropped. --XRay 💬 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the reviewers changed over the years. I just joined the QI enthusiasts a few months ago. I'm trying to follow the written guidelines on the nominations list and the Commons QI guidelines, but don't compare the images to similar pictures from 2014 ;) Guidelines say that "objects in foreground or background should not be distracting", which implies that objects in background are allowed, they should just not "be distracting". Blurry people in background far behind a car on a fair can be ok for me, a person standing right behind the car in the same focus level is not. ... But it is quite obvious that we have different stands on what is a QI and what is not. Some are like "it's sharp so it is QI", others are like "it is vertical so it is QI", others are like "right side is 0.9 % brighter than left side so it can never be QI". Also there are several people thinking that composition would be irrelevant for QI (which is wrong). And we have lots of blurry nominations and lots of overprocessed smartphone pictures, where I don't really know what to do (usually I only comment on those but do not approve or decline them, unless they're really bad). Plozessor (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In the parking lot photos, you are condemned to this tight crop because otherwise there is too much distracting stuff around it. But if you want to take attractive photos of cars in the wild, it can be very time-consuming and tedious. It's not so easy to achieve the desired number of awards. --Smial (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Creator section proposal for rewording

currently says;

• 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 (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

propose that this be changed to(in bold);

• Photographs must have been taken by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that photographs 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 (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the photograph by a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

The purpose is to clarify that QI's are photographs, they can be composites but they must not be machine generated images. Gnangarra 12:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment This would of course also exclude the creators of maps, animations, coats of arms or logos. --Smial (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I've been wondering why these are currently allowed anyway. Most of QI criteria - sharpness, DOF, white balance, etc. - are specific to photographs and have nothing to do with vector graphics of logos or submarines. These pictures are valuable, no doubt, but I'd prefer QI as something for photographs. Plozessor (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that then be Quality Photos, not Quality Images? Personally I like the broader definition and scope. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There are some quality images that are not photos. There is even a category for these: Commons:Quality images#Non-photographic media. These are usually scans or drawings. I suppose that most animated pictures are also based on drawings. Why should we exclude any of these? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

QICvote error

QICvote applies my comment on a different image than the one I reviewed. This is the edit broken by QICvote. And here is the fix I had to make manually. This is consistent. While reviewing the same picture, I have encountered the same problem twice already in the morning. -- Jakubhal 15:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have reported it on the tool page. -- Jakubhal 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Thank you. This happens from time to time, I have seen it before, but I was not able to track down the issue to a clear reason. I suspect that certain minor errors in the Wikitext syntax of the QIC candidates page can confuse the gadget and make it edit the wrong item. --Aristeas (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Flickr

"pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible." Does this mean that if (for example) I upload my image first to Flickr and then bring it from there to Commons it is ineligible, even though I am the photographer and I am active on Commons? For images I am uploading to both, I almost always upload to Flickr first, because it is easy to copy images from Flickr to Commons, and difficult in the other direction. - Jmabel ! talk 06:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If you read back to the purpose statement ("The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection."), it is clear that what is important is that YOU created the image, not where it was uploaded first. It is long standing practice to accept images that were uploaded elsewhere first, but produced by a Wikimedian. But you are right, we could clarify this wording. Do you have suggestions? Kritzolina (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: Depends which of two policies you want: either "pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the Commons user who uploaded them is the photographer" or "pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user" (the latter allowing that a different person did the upload). I personally think the former makes more sense: it would be weird if my photo, first uploaded (with a suitable license) to Flickr, became ineligible for QI because someone else uploaded it promptly to Commons before I had a chance. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I get really confused by the first sentence, sorry. Uploaded to where? Flickr? Commons? I think the most important thing is that the original photographer is a Wikimedian and Commons user. To my understanding of the sentences, the second version ("pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user") states this very clearly. But I guess we would need a few more voices for such a change. Kritzolina (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: To Commons. And you are right, I wasn't entirely clear. The intent of the first was "pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the user who uploaded them to Commons is the photographer". Yes, I believe the second would be the better policy. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the current wording of the rules is irritating. Kritzolina has explained here very well the intended meaning. It would be great if you could improve the wording of the rules; the second version is good. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed wording is ok, but also before it was clear IMHO. A picture that I uploaded to Google and Flickr and later upload to Commons is still a picture from me, not a picture from Google or from Flickr. A picture from Flickr is a picture that I downloaded "from Flickr" and then upload it to Commons. Plozessor (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It was clear to you and me, yes. But not everyone reads and interprets rules the same way. It was confusing to another quite experienced user, so we can safely assume the original wording is confusing to other people as well. Clarifying never hurts. Kritzolina (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment When I created this the wording was very sepcifically intended to focus solely on the original works of Commons contributors, Commons lacked anyway to identify good images created by our contributors and unique to the Commons. All Commons had at the time was FP to recognise images, and that was dominated by files scraped from third party websites including Flickr. I wanted the community to be directly recognised for their contribution to the community not to other sites, uploading to Flickr then scraping to Commons is not making Commons a community. Gnangarra 11:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gnangarra: may I ask how I make Commons any less of a community when (for example) I photograph the images that now make up Category:Syttende Mai, Ballard, Seattle 2023, first upload them to my Flickr page, and then from there upload them to Commons? Keep in mind: there are several ways to copy images from Flickr to Commons, and no tool to go in the opposite direction, so the alternative if I want to upload to both would be to upload twice from my PC to the Internet, rather than upload once and use a tool to copy. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

    What is your purpose for uploading to Flickr? Commons allows gallery pages, which are the same as flickr albums you have more felxability here in the displaying of images. Gnangarra 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Gnangarry Sorry but I can't follow. First, per its own definition, Commons is a "media repository", not a "community" (though obviously a community is part of it). Then, how does it impact Commons if I upload files elsewhere? For example, I might take pictures of natural or heritage monuments and upload them to my Facebook timeline or to Google Maps, or provide them to the authorities if the pictures missing in the official repositories, but then wait for WLE or WLM to upload them to Commons. --Plozessor (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  A community is joining with a group of people with the same aims, in Commons that is building a repository of freely licensed media Commons is absolutely a community. QI is about recognising the efforts of our community to provide good quality images of subjects that will never meet the artistic expectation of FP or win prizes in WLE and WLM etc. If it isnt Community why worry about QI not accepting images from Flickr. The licesning doesnt prevent you from uploading photographs anywhere else anyway. The no Flickr was to encourage the contributors to our projects, unlike fp that accepts photos found on the internet and not unique works of the community. Gnangarra 06:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The reasoning of pitting Commons against Flickr, sounds outdated to me. It might have made sense when it was still tricky and time-consuming to upload photos, and photographers therefore tended to have one site as their digital home. Today, most photographers are active on a number of different sites where they upload photos in different styles and for different reasons. We are not committed to one site anymore, and if we put up restrictions in any way here on Commons, it will only deter photographers from being active on Commons too. For example, I upload things on Flickr that I can't upload on Commons (for license reasons), and I upload on Commons things that would be excruciatingly boring to people on Flickr. There are other sites with other considerations. Having a free flow of images between different sites for a photographer is how it works best if you want your photos to get noticed. --Cart (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been sharing photos on other sites even before I started here(still do), it was one those other sites that brought me to Wikipedia before Commons even existed. I commented to clarify the reasons around establishing QI, the decisions made then. Back then after Commons had started there wasnt enough printable images of any subject by Commons contributors to make a calender, though there lots of FP(mostly US Government) that could. I still think that the primary aim of QI is encouraging our Community and promoting, that should be the core value of QI. I only upload the full size files here, everything uploaded elsewhere is downsampled. Gnangarra 07:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, It doesn't matter where the pictures were uploaded first, as long as the author has also an account on Commons. As Cart said, it doesn't matter to me if the user is active on Commons or not. This rule is meant to avoid competing pictures from say NASA which doesn't make sense. Yann (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ahem, to clarify, that is not exactly what I said. I think an image on QIC should be made by a photographer who has a Commons account, simply because suggestions about improvements of the image are so common on QIC, and it's easier if the photographer is present here. My point was that it shouldn't matter where the image is uploaded first. It would also help if there are adequate links/whatever on the different sites so that it's verifiable that the accounts are held by the same user. --Cart (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)