Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 28

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31

Opening closed nominations in Consensual Review

I've done this, but only when there was an obvious closing error (if I ever did that in any other situation, it was based on a misunderstanding). Why are people doing this for no good reason? If this continues, CR will become chaos. Should people committing this infraction be threatened with a prohibition on participation at QIC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how long after the last review or comment (or just review?) is the nomination supposed to be closed in CR? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I won't get banned if I reopen the consensual review when I believe that there was a closing error. I promise that I will always make a note in the discussion in future cases so that any error can be corrected.
For closure I usually wait at least until the last vote is three days old. In addition, at least as far as I can understand this, no consensual review should be closed as inconclusive if the image was less than 8 days in consensual review. That is what the QICresult template says when there is an inconclusive result. Time spans may be ambiguous in this case, because the rules say that "In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry." If the entry is the nomination, then time span might be shorter; this would not make much sense, though. BTW does the rule mean that if there is only one declining vote and if the nominator objects to the vote, the image should remain in consensual review for 8 days unless somebody adds a vote? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both deadlines should be set at eight days after the postponement to CR, so that contributors who may only have time to participate here at the weekend also have a chance to vote or comment. --Smial (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No to your last question, Robert Flogaus-Faust, because the nominator does not get a vote. Smial, your proposal is fine if it would eliminate confusion, but it's very typical for uncontested nominations or nominations with only negative votes (other than that of the nominator) to end more quickly. We've done that without much incident in COM:FPC for a long time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Photos have always been rejected after two or three days, even if there were pro-votes, for example at a score of 1:2. These were pictures that had NOT exclusively received contra votes. Personally, I like to sleep a night over it if I am unsure about a judgement and - bang - the next morning it has already disappeared. A few minutes after the two-day deadline. --Smial (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument with being a bit more deliberative, within reason. Your point is well taken. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, could we not introduce a hard limit that applies to ALL cases? Candidates who are the subject of controversial discussions are sometimes even found in CR for longer than eight days, because the time limit is extended again and again, because discussions go round in circles without there being any substantial new findings. Under certain circumstances, this could also prevent disputes about premature archiving or incorrect reactivation of cases that have actually already been closed. --Smial (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) [reply]
By all means make a proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One quirk of QIC is that it operates on soft deadlines, as opposed to FPC which operates on hard deadlines. At FPC, if a vote comes in at 9 days 1 hour, it is thrown out. Likewise if an oppose vote comes at 5 days 1 hour after 10 consecutive supports. That is, the passage of time is what results in operation of rules; the actions of the bot/human closer are simply housekeeping, an acknowledgement of the fait accompli. But with QIC, an action is only final once the bot has acted upon it (I am simply describing what happens in practice, regardless of what the rules say which are a bit ambiguous anyways). So you'll see people challenging reviews at 49 hours, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like someone should work on the bot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes three of us. I have no idea how to put together a proposal that would have any chance of success. But I would be happy to support such a proposal. Since changes to the bot and any desired changes to the processes here regularly come to nothing, a first step would probably be necessary without changes to the bot. --Smial (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to read different point of views as I have been 'eager' to go for QICresult straight after the 48 hour deadline to unclutter the list. A valid point that some interested parties may miss the opportunity to act as they did not follow the proceeding of that particular case closely. Another lesson learned -- If a proposal / bot modification is out of reach, I would like to suggest to evaluate the current set of rules. Are they phrased properly and do they give a clear set of 'how to' and 'when to' rules? From my point of view the answer is no, as I misinterpreted them which led to 'premature' closure. Don't get me wrong this may be based entirely on my limited intellect. Just my 2cents --Virtual-Pano (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot stopped

QICbot stopped today due to a temporary database lock. --XRay 💬 05:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the list of files from yesterday bot edition that should be promoted -- Jakubhal 05:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the archive page manually and added the QI template to all promoted photographs. --XRay 💬 06:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr images by me

Hello. I have nominated several of my photos [1]. I uploaded some of them to Flickr in the past and then they were transfered to Commons [2]. Steindy has declined them[3]. Is that correct? All photos were taken by me. I think that he/she missunderstood the rule "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". I think that the rule needs better wording. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means I see no reason not to promote Flickr images, if the author is a Wikimedian too and quality criteria are met. --A.Savin 15:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emijrp: If you are unsure about my assessment, you can also ask me directly instead of opening this discussion page. But I would like to answer you:
  1. It wasn't obvious to me that you took these photos as you have a different username on flickr than on commons.
  2. You have given no indication that the photos themselves or the nominations for QI are the same person. All the more so because a release note is attached to the photos.
  3. I wonder why you import the photos from flickr when it's your photos? Why didn't you upload the photos to commons directly from your hard drive? Should this be a job for the FlickreviewR 2 bot?
But whatever. You don't have to complain about me for your self-inflicted confusion. I will therefore withdraw my objection, although I would have rejected at least three of your pictures due to lack of sharpness even without your confusion. Regards --Steindy (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steindy: I indeed asked you directly[4] and you didn't reply, you just declined 3 more pictures the following day. emijrp (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emijrp, you should know that the ping on the QI-page doesn't work. --Steindy (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot stop, 4th of May

The bot stopped today just after it started adding tags to images. Here is the archive page for this run: Archives May 04 2022. It needs to be reprocessed. -- Jakubhal 18:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 10 2022. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing EXIF data for many QI candidates.

I think it is important that it remains allowed that geo-coordinates may be hidden in the EXIF, because there are often important reasons for this. For example, when taking pictures in nature reserves or also in private surroundings. However, I would be very much in favor of the other technical EXIF data having to be present in quality images, as they can certainly contain relevant information for subsequent users. --Smial (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing notifications on talk pages

File:Schweriner Schloss seen from Graf-Schack-Allee.jpg
Missing talkpage notification

Hi, I just noticed that I did not get a talkpage notification for two of my recent promotions. Talk page notification seems to be working again, but as I see ongoing problems with the bot, I just also wanted to note here that I did not get notified on promotions yesterday for these two images. I assume those are not the only missing notifications for yesterday. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot failure: Images on 10th May not promoted

Several (all) images that were reviewed for promotion in this archive have not been promoted. They do not have the QI seal and CAT:Quality images. Could someone please rerun QICbot on this archive? --Tagooty (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much easier: Use VisualFileChange.js. It's an easy task. --XRay 💬 05:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the qi seals manually with VisualFileChange.js. Hopefully all seals are OK. --XRay 💬 05:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Thanks! Tagooty (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-ordering nominations?

Hi all, just a thought, would it be useful to regularly rearrange daily nominations (say, every hour)? Currently they are in the order they are nominated, which means you quickly end up with a mix of statuses that obscures photos needing a comment/review. It might be nice to keep the time ordering, but I don't think it's optimal for the review process. It should be quite straightforward to re-order them so they are instead ordered by, for example: first, those needing review; second, those with initial comment; third, those that have been reviewed and passed/failed. I could write and operate a script to do this if it would be of interest. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It would confuse me. It would also tear apart nominations that a user has uploaded en bloc. --Smial (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smial: Could you elaborate on why you'd find it confusing please (as opposed to just different)? Good point about block uploads, but I'm not sure how important those are in the review process? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to think this could be useful. The page is long; nominations get lost; some people (including me) wind up starting at the bottom or the top rather than going through the whole page. I don't see what's important about keeping sets of five nominations together. That said, I'm less active in reviewing than many others, so would defer to them. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to see how it goes, and to demonstrate the idea, I wrote and ran some code that re-ordered Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#May_19,_2022 just now so that the reviewed photos are moved to the end. I'd appreciate any feedback on this. I haven't implemented moving those with an initial comment, since doing that doesn't actually look that easy to code, but even without that this may help highlight those that haven't been reviewed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate this change, thank you --Kritzolina (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of reordering a simple button (and a little bit JavaScript) may be enough. The function? Just hide declined and promoted nominations. --XRay 💬 20:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: Maybe, except that would require someone to write said and implement said JavaScript. I can't do that, but I can offer to implement this approach. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment For me, it is also confusing. I spent some time to find the nomination missing in the place I remembered it. I wonder if it really makes any difference, I mean if now those moved nominations are going to be reviewed. I deliberately leave some pictures I saw, unreviewed sometimes, because they are borderline cases for me, but in some cases, I come back to them later to see other people's opinions and sometimes start a discussion. Now it would be much more difficult for me, I cannot use my memory, as images are moved through the page. -- Jakubhal 20:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1. Also: The nomination list would be much clearer if there weren't countless discussions about often marginal image improvements that lead to candidates being left there endlessly until someone takes pity on them and manually marks them as "complaints not processed after x days". Just click on "decline" a little more courageously when you find faults in a picture. Then the candidates will end up at CR, where they belong, and will no longer be a nuisance in the list above. No, I don't expect this to lead to an uncontrollable flood of new discussions at CR, because many of the candidates concerned end up there anyway. --Smial (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]

Thoughts on image resolution

Is my subjective assessment completely wrong? Or do others here also see a significant increase in candidates that are only slightly above the hard limit of 2 MPixels lately and many actually easy-to-photograph shots that are offered with very clearly less than 6 Mpixels? For a photo that you want to print in A4 size without clear defects, you need something like 6 MPixels, with square images just correspondingly less. Not that I am misunderstood: I don't mind if images from higher resolution cameras are downscaled to a reasonable degree - many affordable lenses don't allow for 36 or 50 MPixels, and if you HAVE to use f/16 or f/22 depending on the motif, then the unavoidable diffraction alone ensures that the full resolution can't be used. But 3 MPixels from a camera with, let's say, 24++ Mpixels sensor resolution is a bit poor, regardless of whether the small size was created by cropping or by downscaling or both. --Smial (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]

+1. Agreed -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot failure: Images on May 28 not promoted

Same problem as before -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But already added QI seals manually. --XRay 💬 10:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I may have found the cause of the bot's problem. Look here, this is the nomination without the prefix File:

Praha Stare Mesto Templova mriz.jpg|{{../Nomination|Steel gate of a passage between Templová and Králodvorská, Old Town, Prague, Czechia --

May 10 had a similar error too. I also looked at the active nominations and fixed two similar errors --George Chernilevsky talk 11:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! There were some similar issues in the past. For example two pipe characters "||" instead of one "|", spaces before or behind "/Nomination", line breaks, unusual signatures, and so on. --XRay 💬 12:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@George Chernilevsky and XRay: Thanks to @Dschwen: I now have access to the bot, and it looks like the absence of 'File:' did cause the error on May 28th. It was running OK up to "File:Immeuble_Lengema_Kisangani.jpg" - and the next file caused an error. I've suggested a change in the bot code to fix this, but want to double-check it with Dschwen before making it live. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nomination after improving - are there issues with that?

After one of my favourite images ended up as an unassessed QI I uploaded an improved version and renominated on May 24th. After several days there is only one comment on it, stating that this is a renomination - which I tried to clarify, because this is not a simple renomination, hopefully issues keeping it from being a QI got changed. Is there any rule against renominating an image after uploading an improved version that I missed? --Kritzolina (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not know of any rule that would exclude a new candidacy if a photo has been improved. On the other hand, there is no obligation to rate any photo. But as I have already said elsewhere: This situation arises from the increasingly unhelpful habit, established at some point in the past, of discussing photos in the list of candidates rather than in CR, where discussions belong. If someone thinks that the renewed candidacy is not permissible, then they should kindly put a "decline" in there so that it can be moved to CR. --Smial (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]
    Ps: The first version was almost perfect, what was the reason for rejection? I'm too lazy to look in the archives right now.
  • For my images that are un-assessed, I tend to resubmit them for a 2nd attempt, and then give up if they're still un-assessed after that. I haven't encountered any problems with that, so it seems fine? I'm not sure why @Steindy: is objecting for your case? Although I think the image is unlikely to pass, since it's noisy, and has colour artefacts (e.g., right-hand side, see the green/purple pattern). (BTW, the first attempt seems to be near the bottom of Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_May_19_2022 - Steindy got the date wrong in their comment.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks both - the image was not declined, it was just not assessed. I mostly wanted to make sure I did not break any rules by renominating, as I might do similar efforts to improve images in the future and then renominate. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: Did I set the photo to "decline"? Although I don't like it, I left the rating open for other users. No, I gave a hint that the photo had only been nominated two weeks before. I didn't stop anyone from rating the photo either, which hasn't happened to this day. Unfortunately, I also have the unpleasant experience that photos remain unrated again and again. Apparently it's because some users only care about posting their photos but are too lazy to rate other photos. In addition, there are users who almost exclusively rate photos in the CR, but are rarely seen elsewhere. --Steindy (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Steindy: , if you had written: "Another version of this image ... " Things would have been a bit clearer. The current wording might have stopped people from voting on it, even if it was not your intention. With my lack on clarity on the rules I probably would not have voted on an image of someone else with this kind of comment. Seeing the different opinions of Smial and Mike Peel helped me learn something. Also - is the comment about not rating images somehow directed at me? If not, please clarify. If yes, please note that I do not necessarily comment every time I nominate, but try to leave comments whenever I feel confident to give an opinion. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear that images can be renominated even if they're declined, if improvements have been made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: I won't clarify anything and as a burned child I won't name any names either. Those who feel affected will ignore it anyway. By the way, the photo is still unrated... Regards --Steindy (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very nice remark. Anyway, it's not unrated anymore. I found the image in question, evaluated it, and think it's good enough. If you disagree, feel free to send it to CR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say this:
  1. An image can always be renominated after improvement, regardless of the reason why the initial QIC was unsuccessful. Otherwise:
  2. If an image is declined, then it cannot be renominated in the normal queue. However, if one does not wish to make improvements because they simply disagree with the decline reason, then they can renominate it directly to CR.
  3. If an image is unassessed, then it can be renominated as usual. Wow factor is not a QI criterion, so an image should not be penalized for being so boring that nobody bothered to review it.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for clarifying the rules for me and perhaps others! --Kritzolina (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought declined images that had been improved could be nominated in the normal queue. They can't be? Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: See the "Otherwise" at the end of 1; 2 and 3 are meant to apply only to unimproved images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitting candidates?

Hello, I recently submitted two images (File:Wooden Bench in City Hall Park.jpg and File:3 World Trade Center Window with Tree.jpg) but they did not receive any comments, nor did they go into consensual review. I see that QICbot added them to Category:Unassessed QI candidates, which is a rather large category.

I reviewed the rules on the QIC page and I don't see any mention of what you can do with unassessed images. Am I able to re-nominate them, or is there a waiting period, or something else?

Thanks. aismallard (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can renominate your own unassessed pictures/nominations. If there is a review, you should fix the issues first. But please do not resubmit other pictures. For example I consider most of my unassessed pictures as declined. --XRay 💬 07:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I also only send pictures to CR if the assessment is obviously flawed. I do not argue about matters of taste with my own pictures. --Smial (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal disagreement with Image subject

Are editors allowed to oppose an image's promotion based on personal disagreement with the subject of the image? This is in relation to this nomination. While I have no real hope for the nomination being successful now, the reasons given for opposing by three reviewers have a bearing on the rules and guidelines. I couldn't find any rule that states that images showing a hunted or dead animal is not allowed to be promoted, please correct me if I am wrong. UnpetitproleX (Talk) 17:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but in practice, people oppose for any reason they like. I think it's strange, though. Many of us eat meat, but pictures of animals and birds being killed are opposed for being "disgusting". A lot of things are disgusting, but they're part of life. War is certainly disgusting, and people being driven to penury, let alone starvation, is certainly disgusting. To read some people's remarks, they presumably wish documentary photographers never photographed anything disturbing and wouldn't want to give them any credit for making good photos. I can only imagine the reactions to Jacob Riis' How the Other Half Lives in a 19th-century version of Wikimedia Commons... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some people routinely find nonsense or out of policies reasons to oppose images they don't like. That's make QI and FP projects very unpleasant. Sad. :( Yann (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot update

Hi, please accept my apologies for the unusual updates today, with Pi bot doing the updates this morning, and then QICBot doing another update this evening. I've been catching up with the code base, and there was an issue with running on Toolforge today that I've now fixed. Everything is now up to date on Toolforge and Github, you can see the details at [5]. Hopefully everything should go back to normal (except without the bugs) from tomorrow onwards! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel: please, accept my thankgiving for those updates :). Seriously, who cares when the bot lefts a message on the user pages, thank you for your support! Poco a poco (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was another bug on 8 June, which meant that only the first few files were tagged. It was due to a filename here being a redirect, I've modified the code to (hopefully) avoid this happening again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about "Discuss" status again - or "Discuss" doesn't mean discuss!

I've argued before that we need to change this misleading status, because every time a new user becomes active at QIC, they completely reasonably take the status as being for every kind of discussion! You can see several examples of this confusion in Consensual Review right now. Again, a different word or phrase should be used to mean "more votes". If the status were called "more votes," it could still be used in exceptional situations such as when I used it a couple of days ago to urge changes to a nomination but without wanting to temporarily oppose it. But the way things are now will continue to create confusion and unnecessary work indefinitely, and yet when I brought this up before, that's what most of you wanted. That still amazes me to the extent that I think it's worth pointing out the current situation. People who believe "Discuss" is needed every time there's any kind of discussion in a nomination are not to blame but are doing the logical thing! We are to blame for not changing the status to mean what it says! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on Commons:Quality images candidates that are not visible on Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list contain the following sentences: "Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page." Unfortunately, this is missing from the rules at the beginning of the Consensual Review section. I am not convinced that "more votes" would be an improvement. This might not keep anyone who feels that there should be some kind of vote from sending an image to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People can do all kinds of things, but what do you think is more likely to be misunderstood, "Discuss", which indicates a discussion, or "More votes," which indicates more votes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I would not appreciate CR being relegated to a voting machine. QIC, in addition to marking photos that meet certain minimum technical requirements, has always had the intention of helping photographers improve their photos. That's why the corresponding section is called "review" and not "voting". Apparently, more and more candidates who have not received any votes are moving up to CR lately. On the one hand, this may be due to the impatience of some participants, but on the other hand, it is also an indication of a development that has been annoying me for quite a long time: that there is far too much discussion in the candidate gallery instead of a short and painless "support" or "decline". It would be nice to be able to push the candidates who have been moved to CR for no reason back to where they came from with just one click. Or we agree on "blunt delete". Can then run again. Forcing a vote by CR when a candidate is ignored or not rated fast enough is an unfriendly action. --Smial (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Is this a problem with QICvote (I don't use)? The standard script does not allow to send an image with the tag "nomination" to CR with a single mouse click. It allows this only with images that have either the tag "Declined" or "Promotion". --Smial (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. I think the problem is precisely a belief by people new to QIC that "discuss" is the appropriate status for any nomination in which a discussion is taking place. That's completely logical, right! Your idea of being able to change the status of a nomination with either no votes or votes that are only positive or negative and not being debated back to its former status is a great one, but I fear no-one will program the bot to move it back to the regular nominations section... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something about QI I always wondered

Hello, a few years ago I dag in the history of QI and learned that the reason why it was started was to support the use case of those looking for a set of good images (e.g. a calendar) within millions of them on Commons. I imagine that most of the people using images are no Commonists but rather people who search the web and look for free licensed media. If I am not wrong until here, why are all those quality categories hidden and only visible to registered users (and even with some experience). I have been wondering that for years and it's time to get a clever answer :) Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how many people use those categories, even though I always add some to each of my QIs. The "old categories" (galleries) that can be found from Commons:Quality images (just e.g. Commons:Quality images/Subject/Plant life#Flowers) are public, but they may not be interesting for most people and many of these pages are so big that they might crash the browser. I usually add the template {{is QI}} to the (mostly botanical) gallery pages with my quality images. If I wanted to make a calendar with great photographs taken by other people, I would chose featured pictures anyway. But the calendars that I make every year for very few friends and relatives contain my own photographs, preferably quality images. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a decision a couple years ago to stop updating the gallery pages because nobody really used them. That account of why QI started is at odds with my impression, based on this recent thread, which largely frames it as an exercise to highlight community contributions rather than to provide any particular best set of images for a subject. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for FPs, QIs and VIs often don't work, anyway, but if people who aren't registered users can't search for those categories, that should be changed. They should be made as visible as possible to help researchers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and the solution is easy: removing the HIDDEN_CAT tag of those cagegories. Does anybody see a problem to proceed with that? With FPs we have the same issue... Poco a poco (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: I guess you'd do this by removing the hiddencat magic word from {{Collection of quality images}}? It seems reasonable to me, but you might want to take care to not remove it from "by user" categories. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if the 5 images per day limit was removed?

Since I started contributing to this process regularly, the limit of 5 images per day has seemed a bit awkward - it would be nice to post nominations as I work on the images, rather than queueing them up and coming back to them another day. I wonder what would happen if the limit was removed - it might lead to more nominations on some days, and less on others, but would that be a bad thing? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This fluctuation might not in itself be a bad thing - but I get bored by too many similar images at one time and might do less reviews. I also feel overwhelmed already on some busy days and would feel more so on those days two or three power users might choose to put up their work of the last weekend. I also find the limitation makes me personally think more about which images I nominate, but this might just be my very personal thing. Single entries from less prolific users also might get lost more easily on busy days. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A small note of thanks

to everyone helping to improve images of others to make them into QIs. I have been thinking about this for a while, when I saw the effort several people put in to improving this image of the Kantangar Temple, I finally decided to write this note. I have visited this amazing place and loved it, it is so full of wonderful, moving, surprising sights that are difficult to photograph - every good image of it makes me happy! A special thank you, Ermell for doing the perspective correction and thanks also to IamMM for nominating the image and trying his hand at improvements! Again - thank you everyone who is helping and improving images with potential! Kritzolina (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting tool error

Hi, I've just noticed, that when two people are voting at the similar time, using our voting tool, the tool may quietly revert the change made by first person, even though we voted on the different pictures. This particular error I've reverted, restoring Ikan vote. ---- Jakubhal 19:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove Commons contributor requirement

I don't know how many watch the main QI page, so FYI:

Please see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Remove requirement that Quality images be the work of Commons contributors and express your opinion there. Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
— Commons talk:Quality images

--El Grafo (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with nomination

Sorry, but I cannot repair my nomination of File:Agfa F28mm ver 01 02.jpg made on September 4, 2022 --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ":" and "=" were causing the problems, I fixed it for you --Kritzolina (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I nominate file for reevaluation of QI status?

Due to shadow https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Khalkhal,_Oghuz_(P1090320).jpg in my opinion does not qualify for QI status. (1) does it make sense? (2) can I nominate it for review of QI status? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no such procedure. Once promoted, a picture is permanently QI. Regards --A.Savin 11:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got notified that this image which I uploaded from Flickr got promoted to QI status. However, the guideliens states ""Quality image candidates should meet all of the following requirements and must have been created by a Commons user." So, it seems like this image should be ineligible to been promoted in the first place? Can such promotions be revoked at least? ping Lrkrol. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, forgot to mention that obvious procedural errors may be corrected of course. Just remove the seal, and remove the picture from the gallery too. Regards --A.Savin 23:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little reproductions of two-dimensional works of art

How can photographical little reproductions of two-dimensional works of art become quality images? Such reproductions have less than 2 megapixels. But such reproductions can be of very high quality! I suggest in such cases to focus on the resolution of such reproductions. If a reproduction have the resolution at least 300 dpi then the reproduction is quality image. Matsievsky (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source (a small stamp) is small and a scan with at least 300 dpi (you made 600 dpi) can't have a result with 2 mp. "Normally" 2 mp means, in special cases, less than 2 mp. --XRay 💬 21:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a general proposal to adjust the general rules. I didn't describe my downloads here. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: In my opinion, the exceptions from the 2-MP-rule are clearly defined in Commons:Image_guidelines#Image_page_requirements. Pixel graphics of stamps are not among them. An exception for very small printed matter (like stamps) might make sense, but some limits might be required. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still remember discussions around this rule well. It is probably due to human inability not to know all the exceptions to the rule. In my opinion, it is logical that scans of small stamps are among these exceptions, even if they are not explicitly mentioned. --XRay 💬 02:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is ok. How to fix the situation? --Matsievsky (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should add "and reasonable other exceptions" to the rule. In my opinion, that would be sufficient. After all, it cannot be ruled out that there are other cases that require an exception. There is always the risk that such a rule will be exploited, but that cannot be changed. We need a voting to change the rule. --XRay 💬 03:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How to organize a voting? --Matsievsky (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new section on this talk page with three subsections: proposal, discussion and voting. Add three subsubsections to the voting: pro, contra and neutral. Then write a good proposal. Last step is beginning the discussion with a ping to all current reviewers and set a limit for the discussion - at least four weeks. --XRay 💬 05:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support an exception for stamps. Huge, tremendously oversized photos of stamps should not be required. But I can foresee wildlife photographers wanting exceptions, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not ready to organize a discussion now.
Sorry, didn't have a stamp at hand. quick&dirty shot with an inexpensive (< 400€) macro lens.
Monstrous resolution?
Why exactly should reproductions of small 2D objects be subject to different rules than photographs of small 3D objects? --Smial (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right, they shouldn't. I don't see a rule according to which the volume of small 3D objects should be more than 2M. Matsievsky (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is a rule that allows higher requirements than this 2-megapixel rule: "reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily". The picture on the right was easy to take. Easy to take pictures should have at least 2000 pixels on the narrow side so that you can print them in decent quality in A4 size. Yes, there is a need for enlarged images of small objects. If this were not so, we would not need magnifying glasses, macro lenses and microscopes. --Smial (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see no reason to take pictures with such a monstrous resolution. And in addition to the macro lens, you can use rings under the lens. And pictures should have at least 1000 pixels on the narrow side. --Matsievsky (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6 Mpixels (or 4 Mpixels for a square image) is a monstrous resolution? You're kidding. And as for extension rings or other photographic techniques concerning close-ups, tell me something new. The second picture shows a part of my setup from the 1980s. And it shows that FOURTEEN years ago, halfway decent pictures with 2000 pixels on the short side were possible. Without any tricks, with my digital camera at that time in full resolution and with a cheap kit lens. It is now 2022, almost 2023.
I have always defended the rule that under certain conditions photos with only two mpixels can be QI, and I still stand by that. But I am strongly opposed to lowering the resolution requirements. Exceptional photos that are smaller can be presented at FP or VP.--Smial (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you didn't answer the question about why to photograph coins with a DIAMETER OF 1-2 INCHES with such a monstrous resolution. It turns out 2000-3000 dpi! Do you want to photograph molecules? For postage stamps, 600 dpi is more than enough, not only the structure of the ink on the paper is perfectly visible, but also the structure of the paper itself. Matsievsky (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG and PNG formats

JPEG and PNG formats have difference functions. See: Discussion about JPEG and PNG format files in Russian. Discussion about JPEG and PNG format files in English. And the JPEG format quality is better, the PNG formats is vague IN WIKI. Therefore, in my opinion, both JPEG and PNG formats of the same image can be quality image. Please nominate both formats. Matsievsky (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should be a lossy format like JPEG be better than a lossless format like PNG? --XRay 💬 07:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because in appearance these losses are not visible, you will not notice them. But it is perfectly visible that the JPEG format is clear and beautiful, and the PNG format is VAGUE, BLURRY. See: Discussion about JPEG and PNG format files in Russian. Discussion about JPEG and PNG format files in English. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still the same image, one QI stamp and no more. Poco a poco (talk) 10:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poco a poco, are you talking about postmarks? In this case, the postmarks are a 2D work of art. And the two postcards are completely different. --Matsievsky (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special postmarks

Why is a special postmark - 2D work of art - not considered 2D work of art? --Matsievsky (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards

Why is a postcard with an original drawing and an original postage stamp then considered QI, then not considered? --Matsievsky (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VI or QI? Color or black-and-white?

I wonder why two things keep coming up in reviews. The same themes come up every few months:

  • Why are shots in black-and-white and color nominated?
  • Why is one image nominated when another with a similar subject is already QI?

It's a bit boring when this sort of thing keeps coming up. There are two fundamentally different types of development: black-and-white and color. The images are developed differently, and the effects of the colors are different. Even tools like Adobe Lightroom support these two ways of developing. Granted, sometimes people claim that you just have to push a button and the color is gone. If you've never developed in black-and-white, you may not be aware of the different options.

The issue of the image already being classified as QI comes from a confusion with VI, in my opinion. Images with the same subject show up multiple times, but with QIC, each image is evaluated on its own merits and not in comparison to another. (I can't completely absolve myself of the issue, as I sometimes take a series of shots of the same subject myself. Maybe sometimes too many, but very rarely in a similar presentation. But nevertheless they are to be considered separately). --XRay 💬 15:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. On QIC, there can never be too many variations on a theme, as long as they're of quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it is a big different if we talk about one shot (with different processings later on) or different shots. If somebody uploads 5 shots (for which you have to push the trigger 5 times) but very similar to each other I believe that the user hasn't taken the required time to sort things out before the upload. I always take several shots of a subject and spend time later on to decide which one is the best. Bu as those shots are different, they all can become QI independently of each other.
On the other hand I don't agree that different versions (black and white vs color, crop 1 vs crop 2, with/without highlight reduction, and so on) can all become QI independently. Same thing, choose one and propose it to QI, but don't expect to gather additional QI stars if the image is the same with different processing (independently of how much effort to put there). I don't see the point of doing that and we have to motivate users to photograph different things to enrich the project. Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zoutelande (NL), Bunker -- 2022 -- 4866.jpg

Does anyone know why this image has not been promoted yet? I just removed an extra blank from the promoter's signature, but I wonder whether the file name and a bug in QICBot might be the problem. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an error. Let's wait for the next run of the bot. --XRay 💬 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, you fix worked. The bot is unfortunately very sensitive regarding the spaces. --XRay 💬 07:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of required edits

Is the number of required edits to be eligible to vote meant for Commons edits only or do Wikipedia edits count? I ask this because of the latest activity by User:Grenadin07. Thanks in advance --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W. Bulach

No idea if this should be raised and if there is a better place for it; but it seems like W. Bulach (formerly active COM:QIC contributor) has passed away. According to his userpage, his year of birth is 1934, he ceased to contribute on 15 Oct 2022, and there is a public obituary to "Wilhelm Bulach" who was born in 1934 and has died on 27 Oct 2022. Should someone know for sure, this would be useful to confirm, so he can be listed on COM:Deceased contributors. --A.Savin 18:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot archiving today

Hi, just to note that the bot didn't run to archive entries today, I think due to this toolforge planned outage. Other things I have running on toolforge also didn't run overnight, so it's not specific for this bot. I think things should be back to normal tomorrow, so let's see if the bot runs OK then. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the archive page manually: Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 03 2023. If you like, add your promoted photographs yourself, change /Promotion to ../Promotion and add the {{QualityImage}} template and remove the photographs from the candidates list. The problem with the bot happens sometimes. In the past we've done this manually too. On the other hand you can wait to tomorrow. --XRay 💬 06:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay: It's a toolforge problem, the bot problems have all been fixed as far as I'm aware. Unfortunately it's a really long toolforge outage (~19h). Thinking about it, I can just get Pi bot to do today's archiving (since that runs on a local machine), I'm now doing that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --XRay 💬 07:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POTY

The organizers of POTY 2022 have started the voting process, but they have not put anything on the Commons home page and nothing here. Charlesjsharp 08:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp Thanks for this heads up about POTY 22 voting! Tagooty (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from main page. Mike Peel (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Request to improve documentation

I am not familiar with editing translated pages. So I suggest my edit here.

I’ve participated in QIC for the first time today. That’s why I feel the documentation could be improved.

  1. Under Evaluation images there’s a paragraph in red font with 2 pieces of information. Please split the info about nomination requirements and the QICvote gadget into 2 paragraphs.
  2. Under How to nominate please insert a paragraph promoting QInominator at the top of section (maybe also in red)—currently the info is buried in text at the end of the section.
  3. Same section: Currently the word Gadget links to the user’s preferences page what is a bit surprising—please link the name of the gadget to its documentation Help:Gadget-QInominator and add a new sentence/clause referring to preferences with a link to the user’s preferences.

Frupa (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QICvote helper

Do you have any problems with the QICvote helper? I can't confirm vote at a smartphone (Google Chrome) and iMac (Google Chrome) too. And I can write any comments at my smartphone, only the default value is possible. The input window is flickering at Google Chrome (Android). --XRay 💬 04:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ups. It looks like my mistake. I'd the old script in my common.js too. --XRay 💬 04:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked again with Google Chrome/Android. Still nearly unusable. --XRay 💬 16:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had the same problem yesterday. Today it works without any changes on my side. I know that QICvote helper is sensitive to the QIC list format. Sometimes it does not work if someone made a nomination in some unusual way. LexKurochkin (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And now, on May 14, we have the same problem. LexKurochkin (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, it didn't work the day before yesterday, it worked yesterday, it doesn't work today...do you have a clue what is going on, Wilfredor? I see no changes in the code of the gadget. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Poco, I would like to extend my sincere apologies for the prevailing situation. Upon careful observation, it appears that the issue stems from modifications in the display approach of the nominations list, a shift that seems to have been brought about by a change in the MediaWiki template. Such alterations are an inevitable part of the technological evolution, particularly with a platform as dynamic as MediaWiki. This platform frequently undergoes updates and enhancements, irrespective of the potential implications on user-created add-ons, some of which may cease to function overnight. This shift is in line with the recent guidelines set forth by the Wikimedia Foundation, aimed at enhancing the overall user experience on Wikipedia. These guidelines entail moving towards Commons, a decision that is expected to significantly augment the process of consuming information on Wikipedia. Currently, I am engaged with other pressing matters; however, rest assured, addressing this issue remains a priority on my list. I will endeavor to rectify the problem as soon as I am able to divert my attention towards it. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_28&oldid=774455556"