Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive/2010-01

Nominating Photos

Is it appropriate to nominate my own photos as quality? I don't want to step on peoples toes here. I have been contributing photos and would like some feed back on there quality. Also im really not very experienced with editing web pages like this....just uploading to the commons has been a feat for me...apologies.

thank you Jonathan

--Jonathanmallard

You may nominate your own photographs (as most of us do ;-), if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Can we make it a guideline that people must use simple signatures? It's a real pain having to figure out what's breaking the template. Dori - Talk 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. It would also be a real pain to educate the QICbot on how to properly read the vanity signatures. --Dschwen 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, calling it bot spam and just removing the warning won't change the fact that QICbot will simply disregard nominations with incomprehensible signatures. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to making the QICbot smarter, but that might take some time, depending on my workload. --Dschwen 19:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The problem was not the sig, but the timestamp User:O left. He seems to be the only one who still calls UTC GMT. Anyways, QICbot should now accept a timestamp labled GMT as well. --Dschwen 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, the newest signature-sin: [[User talk:Bdesham|★]]. Expect those promotions to go wrong until I fix the bot (will try..). --Dschwen 13:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops :-) I've removed that portion of my signature from the candidates list. It would obviously be nice if the bot could still be fixed, though… perhaps a more reasonable request would be for people to start their signatures on this page with "--". That way the bot could treat everything between "--" and "(UTC)" as the signature. --bdesham ★ 17:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum to what I said earlier… I don't think you should criticize users for using a MediaWiki feature, even if it happens to break your bot. If you think you have a legitimate complaint, petition to have the feature disabled; otherwise, don't complain that people are taking advantage of a standard part of our wiki system. --bdesham ★ 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QV?

Is there any "Quality Video" status? Because I'd like to nominate Image:French Island Echidna.ogg if there is... --86.67.47.199 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but maybe there should be. I'll have to get a better grasp of the videos on commons and their qualities first. --Dschwen 14:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could probable add QS Quality Sound as well to future plans, Gnan garra 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original author

I think we need to clarify what is meant by "original author". Image:С. Г. Чириков - Александр Сергеевич Пушкин (акварель).jpg was recently promoted (by me after consensual review (5 to 1)), however, afterward I started thinking maybe it shouldn't have been. I know we promote derivatives all the time (like photos of statues), but this isn't a derivate. It's a copy, meaning there's nothing new that could be copyrighted. Legally, the photographer isn't considered the author (as the license tag correctly shows). The first guideline states "Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder under a suitable license." Personally, I would disqualify it, but there were 5 supporters (plus the nom.) and only one oppose. Any suggestions? Rocket000 06:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QI is a Quality Images. So, a quality copy is quality image. About copyright - isn't a pd-self+pd-old+pd-art do not enough? It's PD anyway. And you can not make it again. It's a museum. Flash strictly disallowed. Due mistake a museum keeper allow me use flash, so this copy can not be redone. About "copyright holder". If you looking to word "public" you can see me (and you, and all other peoples of the world) as copyright holders. If you make a photo of statue, it copyrighted by original author, isn't? And you accept photo of statue (if it in public domain). Where differece between "copyrighted" photo of pd statue and non-copyrighted photo of 2d art? #!George Shuklin 08:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is between a copy and a derivative. This a faithful 2D reproduction of the the original - the same as scanning an old photograph. Now I know it takes more skill to use a camera to reproduce it, but the result is similar. The goal is simply to create a copy with no addition creative input. If there was even a picture frame in this photo, that would be different, because it would be consider a derivative. Taking photos of artwork should be done like you did, but can they be a QI? I think you did a wonderful job, and it's definitly quality; I just want to make sure it's eligible for QI. Rocket000 10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At my opinion, any work, requied skill to be done and maked by commoner can be nominated. F.e. if any retake an old historical movie (from film to digit) - it can be nominated to featured media. #!80.249.182.254 (george shuklin) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What about tweaking someone else's photo? Rocket000 22:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that promoting this image is within the spirit of what QI is about, even if it is not to the letter of the guidelines-- "Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons." —JeremyA 15:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A photo of a PD painting is copyrighted in most countries. The “by the copyright holder” requirement is therefore fulfilled. Kjetil r 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were already such photos about paintings promoted, included mine. Several others were refused, but because of quality problems. I think such a photographic reproduction is difficult enough to evaluate it accordingly. The Commons is full of bad photos about good paintings. To promote a good reproduction is setting a good example, which is the QI is about. To foster the knowledge about paintings in museums is a very valid aim of the Wikipedia. To do this on a high level is deserves very well a QI tag.--Szilas 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went ahead and promoted this image. The support votes and discussion here points to allowing these images. Any further discussion should take place on this talk page instead stalling the process of individual images. Rocket000 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly the idea of QI is to encourage users to supply commons with high quality images that they have created rather than just finding them on the net. For someone to make a high quality reproduction of a 2D work of art, even if it is done on a scanner (!), has great value. The quality of the resulting image is what counts, not how they created it or how much creative inspiration went into it. More power to them if they can get the Mona Lisa off the wall, out of its frame, and onto a high resolution flatbed scanner :-). Remember, QI is not a competition, it is about improving the supply of high quality images to commons. --Tony Wills 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. And I definitely thought this was quality. I was just making sure it meet the criteria of QI. You know, technically speaking. Rocket000 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I've taken the liberty to archive the discussions on this page, discussion upto around 22 June are now in /Archive/2007-01 from then through to 28 November are in /Archive/2007-02 my appologies if I moved any discussions that are still active. Gnan garra 14:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

It seems odd to 'decline' images that people have withdrawn for a variety of reasons, so I have made a Commons:Quality images candidates/Withdrawn template that they can use. It is appropriate to use when one withdraws an image before it has actually been declined, although no one need 'police' its usage. Of course if someone wants to withdraw their image after it has been promoted (but before the 2 day period before that promotion is confirmed and executed) they are welcome to use it for that too. If no one objects, I'll add it to the documentation page. I guess QICbot should be consulted too, he can just treat it as a decline. --Tony Wills 01:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Rocket000 13:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an image is withdrawn, then the option is left open to edit and renominate so we should encourage anything that promotes improving the quality images. Gnan garra 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that some of the images that were withdrawn recently were not taken by Wikimedian photographers… those aren't eligible at all, so they can't be re-nominated. In that case, IMO, it makes more sense just to remove the picture from this page entirely rather than switch to {{/Withdrawn}} and wait for the bot to remove it. --bdesham ★ 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Tony! I've changed the template's color to gray, as that made a little more sense to me :-) bdesham ★ 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnangarra : There is no reason images that are declined can not be re-nominated (especially if they never went through a CR but the nominator thinks in retrospect that the reviewer was wrong). And of course edited versions can be re-nominated in all cases. --Tony Wills 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Images

I believe that the whole Quality Image process is losing focus, it's now more of a contest than anything else. Instead of focusing on pictures that are useful to Wikipedia and other projects, it's more focused on the far less important technical aspects of each picture. Are these really that important when the vast majority of viewers are only going to see a thumbnail and/or the preview on the image page? I'm not arguing that these aspects should be ignored, just that they aren't quite so important as some users make them out to be. This leads me to my second point, why the 2 megapixel rule not only nearly useless, but may actually discourage quality images from being uploaded. The rule states:

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

The strength of any Wiki is that it's online, to make a rule because an image may be printed is silly. I understand that there are printed versions of Wikipedia given to underprivileged youth, but a 2mp image is enough for a 4x6 inch 300 dpi print. I seriously doubt that prints of that size and quality are going into those encyclopedias, if they are it's a complete waste of money. I have yet to see a print encyclopedia with 4x6 inch images inside. As to the very high resolution monitors, they aren't even available to the public yet. The idea that we should have "reasonably large resolution" because "We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either" is ridiculous since we can just up the requirement when needed, which doesn't look like it'll be anytime soon.

I also suspect that users aren't cropping as much as they should so their images fall within the 2mp mark. To pick on myself compare the two images to the right. One's meets the requirements for QI, the other is much more useful as a thumbnail, which is how the majority of users will see it.

Furthermore, while many of the regular photographers here have no problem creating quality 2mp pictures, it can be rather tricky for beginning photographers. As written, the purpose of the quality image program is to encourage users to contribute quality images. I doubt it's very encouraging when an otherwise decent picture gets instantly shot down because of size. Some of us don't have the equipment needed to produce high resolution images. Many cameras, while 4mp, only produce about 2mp worth of detail (I used to have one). And so we create the environment we have now where most of the regulars to QI and FP have digital SLRs.

To sum up my point, I believe that our cold rigid rules create a bureaucracy that frequently works against the original points of the QI program. To quote the QI page "Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia projects." I believe the QI requirements should be very forgiving to new users and the image size should be lowered to the English Wiki FP requirement of at least 1000 px on one side. That being said, keep the FP requirements the same and have that be a "photo contest" while the QI program focuses on encouraging users to upload images useful to Wikimedia. --Calibas 23:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are basically complaining that a) QI is not enough like FP, b) QI is not Commons greatest thumbnails, and c) QI is not backpatting for newbies and people with crappy cameras. All of the above is certainly true, but that's what QI was designed for (correct me if I'm wrong). The end-user does not care whether out contributors made an honest effort but they rather bought a new lawn-chair set than invest in a better camera, they (sorry thats the cold reality) do not care if they cannot or want not afford a better camera. They care about the quality of the end product. There ate lots of useful pictures which do not meet QI requirements, and maybe having this page here and tagging certain pictures as Quality Images and others not makes people feel outcast. They shouldn't. Their contributions are appreciated as well, their pictures are certainly usefull as well. If they weren't they'd be deleted (in an ideal Wiki world). But QI is what it is, an effort to build a library of images which meet a certain set of technical requirements. Cold technical requirements, well and some cold compositional rules as well. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. There are other pages for those who are looking for something else. There is Photography critiques, which should work on a more chatty personal level, there is commons FPC which awards spectacular image content, and there are en.WP, de.WP etc. FPC which focus on encyclopedic content. To sum up my point: QI is perfectly alright this way, no need to change anything. --Dschwen 11:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QI was designed to encourage content from the "locals" being of a standard that is capable of being printed, the reason behind this was that back in the dark ages(2006) there was an attempt to create a series of photos by "locals" for bundling into printed matter which could then be sold to raise funds for the Foundation. I spent 2 weeks going through all the images of cars, trucks, trains at that time there wasn't 12 images from "locals" in all of those categories that where over 1000px on both axis. From that I decided to create some way of recognizing efforts in providing images that would enable any such project in the future, thats where the 1600px(2meg) size came from. I started with a 4meg fix focal camera cost AU$75 it provided images of the size requirements example ok it doent come near any of the other technical requirements. My next camera cost AU$400 and it was only a 5meg with in built optical zoom and some of the images from that camera have become QI's example. I dont think we have asked for anything that is beyond the average contributor, you do raise some interesting points that need to be considered. From personal experience one of the photos I uploaded here is now being used on packaging in Australia, I believe it'll soon be on product shipped to the US and Asia, while this is only one example not all end users are Foundation projects. Its these other users that are potential sources for the funds needed to help maintain, expand, and update the equipment that is necessary to host the projects. Gnan garra 13:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the reason for keeping the 2mp size limit? As I've pointed out before there's not much reason for printing the images since the basic nature and strength of a Wiki is it being online. Assuming we do print we'll have a 1000 px limit which at 250 dpi (usual for an encyclopedia?) is enough for a 2.5 inch print. That's plenty for a print encyclopedia. Can someone explain to me the reason we're keeping the size limit, other than, as Dschwen says, to keep out amateurs with crappy cameras? And what exactly does the 2mp size limit contribute to Wikimedia? I can't even view QIs and FPs in full on my monitor without ugly downsampling. Shouldn't the online version matter more since that's how the vast majority of people will see it? --Calibas 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point raised by Calibas,but on the other hand I think the QI requirements are OK as is. However, I still think we need some way to recognize valuable images (VI) or encyclopedic images (EI), which does not necessarily fulfill the QI nor the FP wow criteria. We have plenty of examples of contributors who has nominated very valuable photos on QI and FP, which failed due to the technical requirements, but would be very usefull in thumbnail in online uses. -- Slaunger 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we only change the image size requirement? I fail to see any good reasons for making it 2mp. The only reason we'd need it that size is for making high quality 4x6 prints, which I don't see any need for. I'm willing to bet nearly every print made from these pictures has nothing to do with any Wikimedia project. Are we trying to put the stock photography websites out of business? Wikipedia is online, the pictures are viewed online, why not optimize the pictures for viewing online? I believe this will encourage more amateur and professional photographers to add pictures. I've seen various complaints from excellent photographers saying they don't want to give away for free high quality versions of the photographs they worked so hard on. And why should they when Wikimedia doesn't have any use for high quality prints? Oh yeah, my math earlier was wrong, a 1000 px image at 250 dpi isn't a 2.5 inch print, it's a 4 inch print, way more than enough for a print encyclopedia. --Calibas 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2 MP guideline is not too bad. However the "very high resolution monitors" phrase is stupid. Pictures get used as thumbnails in articles mainly. Some will view the bigger 800 px wide previews or even the full screen version in the browser. No need to care too much about these. Full screen means max. 1600*1200 px currently which is exactly 2 MP. It can be used as a desktop wallpaper then. Anything bigger is only useful for print. And for print the rules for sharpness are a bit different. Sharpness for print is best previewed at 50% downsizing on screen. That's just the opposite of what most reviewers do: They zoom into images more than 100% to judge about sharpness.

The result is that images from high resolution cameras need to get downsampled in order to survive a QI or FP review. And that's a bad thing if somebody really likes to print a poster or similar. Think about it! --16:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC) unsigned statement by User:Ikiwaner

@Calibas QI was setup to encourage the technical improvement of the images submitted to Commons, I think it does that, even to the extent that FP now demands a QI level of technical quality (which I don't think it needs to, but then FP is meant to be the cream at the top, so I suppose it is ok :-). Commons is not just fodder for wikipedia but a project in its own right - to built a free media library. Building a library of images of just sufficient quality for current requirements makes no sense, most material would be obsoleted in only a few years. We can always scale down images and retain, if not improve quality, the same doesn't work the other way.

Secondly there are no rigid rules coldly applied, there is not even a 'minimum size requirement' (although a few people like to assert there is), there are a set of guidelines but these are not 'rules', we can promote whatever we like to QI (just takes moving it to CR and getting some support :-). I have long fought on both FP and QI to assert that there IS NO MINIMUM SIZE, and tried to correct those who assert otherwise - but I seem to have been worn down (to many tings to do :-(

The 'excellent photographers' are not objecting to giving away 1600x1200 versions of their images, they object to people demanding they upload their full size images (often 12Mpixel).

I would not object if the guideline was lowered a little, it would allow me to crop some images in a more pleasing way and allow for my camera's good, but insufficient, zoom capability. But then, if even I can somehow manage to get 30% of my uploaded images promoted to QI (from a 5 year old camera design that boasts 4Mpixels), one can not claim that the standard is unrealistic ;-)

QIC should be very encouraging to new users, we can often say "great photo, but .....". I certainly often experience having made a great photo (finally got the shot I wanted) and then have other people point out its obvious technical flaws which I have overlooked. It is no help to anyone to give new users a false sense of achievement, instead we should encourage them, and suggest ways they might be able to improve next time. QI is only a competition with one-self, we are not ranking photographers by the number of QIs (though that's another battle ;-) --Tony Wills 04:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I consider the size requirements, I think the current standards are just fine and if they were to be altered, I would actually prefer something even larger. However, more of this later.

Although I fully understand concerns for the user satisfaction expressed above, I am positive that technological advances will make it increasingly likely that the current standards should be easily met with equipment available for very restricted budget. As an example, my mother uses a 8MP P&S which produces excellent images and which cost roughly 200€, which should not be too much for e.g. a student interrested in photography. And if we consider new budget DSLR's available for 500€ or thereabouts with lens, meeting the existing requirements should not be too onerous with fairly restricted budgets. After all, at least in my opinion, even 500€ for a hobby is not too much. And when used DSLR's enter the market in volume, even this cost decreases.

Regarding my remark for even larger size requirement, there are three reasons for my opinion, one related to user experience, one to informative value and one to post processing and derivative use.

As for the user experience, even though the current standards provide adequate image size for common monitors, I do not believe that this situation will last for too long. After all, increasingly bigger panels are available for reasonable prices and are incorporated in (desktop) packages. I am quite sure that in five years, home users will turn to 30 inch or even larger panels. When the panel size and resolutions increase, images just fulfilling the current minimum size requirements will begin to look - well, just something not too impressive. Therefore, I would not hesitate to increase the minimum size requirement.

Another reason why I would be inclined to increse the size requirement, is informative value. When I consider the informative value, I think that the larger the size, the better. I truly appreciate those contributors who, for example provide the project with incredibly detailed composite images of buildings, landscape and everything else, as these large images enable me to investigate the subject in more detail if I so desire. And if the purpose of the project is to distribute information, what better than extremely detailed and large size images? As for the concerns raised above, what Ikiwaner mentioned above, I think that it is more worrying that assessors do not consider the benefits of larger images and asses such images like they were another 1600 x 1200 images, pointing out minute details seen on screen from 50 cm away as failures on images which would have a printed size of something like 125 x 82,5 cm (50 x 33 inches) - after all, if those images were printed in size comparable to what is seen on screen, the prints would be viewed several meters away. Not from a distance of 50 cm. And most things seen as a failures by those assessors who apparently approach QIs as some kind of "is it theoretically possible to spot something to complain about"-task would certainly not be visible in any reasonably sized print viewed from a typical viewing distance. Therefore, I am more concerned about that kind of assessement attitude than too big minimum size requirement. After all, if "good enough" images cannot, as Ikiwaner appropriately said, survive QI or FP review without downsampling (which will conceal details and noise which could be considered as failures), something is wrong. As I understand that the purpose of QI is to make quality images easily identified, in this respect, it may not serve its purpose, if it discriminates against images larger than 1600 x 1200. On the contrary, it may be counterpriductive and may well be discourage newer contributors. And furthermore, one note regarding assessements of larger images. It should also be recognised that if an image is reviewed from 15" screen with low resolution, it may appear to have more "failures" than the same image viewed from 24" higher resolution screen (because of the larger pixle size in lover resolution screen). Hence, curiously enough, it could well be that assessor using lover performance equipment, could well see more "failures" and decline images which appear to be perfectly fine on higher quality monitor. Anyhow, perhaps this should be another subject.

Finally. The third reason I prefer larger images is the ability to create derivative images for uses the original uploader did not recognise or intend to emphasise with original image. Obviously these derivative images are not likely to meet the QI or FP requirements, but nevertheless, in thumb (or other smaller) size they could be valuable for purposes of illustrating articles. Perhaps such derivative images could be used to illustrate details of animal anatomy, technical solutions, architectural details and such. Therefore, I think that everyone would benefit if more larger images were uploaded.

In conclusion. I would not be too keen to decrease the minimum size requirements. On the contrary, if requirements were to be altered, perhaps the minimum size should be increased. However, as for now, I think that the current size requirement is sufficient for its purposes, although for reasons above, I would prefer that more larger images were QIs. --Thermos 20:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization ?

In my opinion, the 2d requirement for image pages to be nominated :
Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
is unfair for 2 reasons :
1. According to this general rule resulting from this vote, categories and galleries systems are both equally valid. So when an image has been put in a gallery, it's as valuable as categorized. Then each one may add the other system, but no one is obliged. For organisms, creation of galleries is recommended.
2. A requirement is something you must do and a recommandation is something you should do. So taxa naming must be more accurate if considered as a requirement and not as a recommandation.
So I propose to split the 2d requirement this way :

Quality images must be correctly categorized and/or put in a categorized gallery page, have a meaningful title and description
Organisms, when identifiable and present in the foreground, must be identified by the scientific name of the taxon

--B.navez 09:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'rule' about categorization is already broadly interpreted as 'put in appropriate categories and/or galleries'. And the 'rule' about taxa is clearly for when an organism is the subject of the photo, not incidental (whether in the foreground or not). Personally I think we should back off from instruction creep and not try to be more and more specific (we don't need lawyers to judge QIC). Basically the guidelines should specify that the images should have a good description (what, where, when, who etc), a meaningful filename (ie not DC0001.JPG) and be put into (at least) the most significant categories and galleries that are relevant to it. --Tony Wills 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS "For organisms, creation of galleries is recommended" is a TOL project idea, the Quality Images project can have whatever rules we determine (well, within the overall project scope :-) --Tony Wills 10:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two 'rules' set out by B.navez are common-sense and indeed already applied. This has not so much to do with creep as with clarity. If you use guidelines as opposed to rules, then you invite endless discussions (and ultimately lawyers ;-)). I agree with B.navez that categorization is as much putting in a gallery as in a category, as long as the image can be properly retrieved with a search. And of course when an organism is the main topic of a photograph, it has to be correctly identified. Lycaon 10:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second B.navez 'rule' is significantly different from current practice, and not an improvement, only the subject of the photo needs proper identification. Identifying ants on the plant, or the tree a bird is sitting should not be 'must be' requirements. --Tony Wills 11:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense needs to be applied (read either gallery or category where it says category) all image are going to be in a license category or two, some will be in a user category, but unless its in category related to the subject no matter how good the image is it might as well not be here. Ideally it needs to be in something that has sufficient detail putting say Banksia integrifolia or Panthera tigris altaica into category:Eukaryota just isnt enough, hence some detail is require to distinguish the tigers from the trees. We dont need set in stone rules either because then it becomes decline the image should be in category tiger,even though its in category Harimau. What it should be if you review an image that could be in another category then you put it in there. Not every contributor has the language skills to know a tiger is a tijger, тигр, tigre or even a Harimau. Gnan garra 13:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category redirection would assist with this perhaps. -- carol 10:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction creeps -- heh. -- carol 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running total oddities

After attempting to use the Running total templates that have appeared here recently -- I have noticed an oddity in that an edit must be at least attempted (and then cancelled or saved) before the template works.

Does this happen for everyone or is it just me and/or my skin? -- carol 10:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean, they seem to work ok for me. But although the template is a nice idea, it is no great help to me - just as much typing, or cut & pasting as without it. Also it will be one more thing that needs to be edited when archiving the nominations (because the archive page won't find the relative link to the template otherwise). I think incorporating it into the Discuss template might work (ie extra parameters that can be used to display a summary at the bottom. It could add up the votes (supplied as parameters), and be used to change the box to look like a decline/promotion when the nomination is closed. But that's really getting too complicated. I'd prefer that the CR/Discuss templates were instead better integrated into the way the main gallery is handled, and QICbot executed the results. --Tony Wills 11:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see what the problem is, the new template has been created as a subpage to the Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate_list page instead of directly under Commons:Quality_images_candidates. It should be moved to Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Running_total and a redirect link left where it is at present. --Tony Wills 11:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same 'oddity' it's rather weird. And I agree with Tony, it doesn't help much in editing, though it may look better. The main aim of templates should be to facilitate easy editing. This does not apply here. Lycaon 11:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am 'whatever' about template or typing things out. I had some serious questions about that bright pink disc though.... -- carol 13:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created the template in question; to be honest, I dislike the use of the monospaced text for the running total. I think it looks ugly, and if the line is very long it does not wrap, potentially ruining the formatting for everything else on the page. I thought it might be helpful to create a template, but if not, feel free not to use it. --bdesham ★ 17:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a very dark or forest green disc? Dark brown or dark green is the color of most of the scoreboreds I have seen. -- carol 17:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked the most appropriate one from Category:Vote symbols. --bdesham ★ 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting set of symbols. I have found that the icons are useful for looking quickly at a 'fluid' set of data -- like this voting. I dislike the icons in the software menus which do not change so often. It doesn't look so pink when it is larger. ;) -- carol 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of discuss template

I think the use of the discuss template ouside the CR area shouldn't be allowed. It's confusing, ackward to reading and may lead to loosing the track of supporting and oppose opinions. I suggest we change the guidelines so that anyone wishing to change a candidate to "discuss" must move it first to CR and insert the adequate support and oppose votes. -- Alvesgaspar 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I was using the Discuss template to keep the bot from moving images into either the Recently promoted or to the archives only if I thought that the image should not go to one or both of those places. Then, I let them sit there until CR had cleared out some.

I think it is more confusing when people use 'Review' to make requests and then never do anything after the requests have been fullfilled. That is very very much more fuzzy to me -- should I start a new discussion area for this? -- carol 13:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see /discuss used in the main area and CR not needed and QICBot used for all promotions. What I envisage is putting a discuss gallery at the end of each day's gallery with a 'widths="640px" heights="135"' perhaps - to get one image across. When images are finally decided QICbot could move them. This makes it easier to move things to CR as it is within the same day's section, so can be done easily by anyone. --Tony Wills 23:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, you have my support vote -- Alvesgaspar 23:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK but does that mean that the eight days grace period is cancelled for CR's without much activity? Lycaon 23:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not abided by that rule perhaps. There were so many things that were just stuck there. I know the rules say nothing about two versions of the same image, but it seems silly and not useful to me.

What if the collection were separated by topic and then by year or half year? It really takes a long while for the main gallery page to draw and the contents to fill in. -- carol 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'analogy' when discussing software processes

Do I need to apologize for

starting to compare the QI process to a human digestive system
and finding it difficult to not continue to compare it to that

?? -- carol 07:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to apologize for anything you like :-), but not all images make it into the digestive system, some are spat out before they have a chance to be chewed on, let alone digested, de hydrated, and deposited in various places. But I think the 'turd' analogy would be more fittingly used to describe the 'declines' (no offence intended ;-), whereas the 'promotions' are more like domestic hen eggs - some have little golden centres, many are just pleasant little eggs, the occasional one is a bit off ;-)

[QIC = chicken feed, withdrawn = spat out, CR = digestive system, promotion = tasty eggs, decline = turds ;-] --Tony Wills 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The digestive system though -- it is a beautiful thing. A cows digestive system is even better though -- the four stomachs, the output is some of the finest and highest quality fertilizer (perhaps among the most seed free after the digestive process) known to gardeners from where I did my gardening. The digestive system of a horse or a human is not so good -- one stomach. If either of those beasts eat seeds (and I had some interesting ideas about where the white cranberry fruits come from, btw) there is a good chance that they not only get passed, but are encased in fertilizer.

The CR discussion, while vile (or perhaps bile) to some -- it has been very educational for me not unlike getting the nutrition and useful stuff from the input before it is deposited in the best place for it.

Chicken scat has too much nitrogen and has to be handled with care, btw.

The writing of software instructions became much less romantic after I wrote some. And the egg analogy -- kind of scary after the file size differences I saw in at least one image.

Cows also make great neighbors -- I miss the Hodge cows from one of my lives more than almost everyone and everything else. And I miss the everyone and everything else quite a bit. -- carol 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic question

Though this does have to do with contributing quality images.

This drives me nuts, when I view the same image in Photoshop, Windows picture viewer and Firefox they all look different. The color balance and brightness (gamma?) is slightly different. Not by much, but it is noticeable. Is there an easy way to alter the images in Photoshop so they look correct in my web browser? Calibas 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color management for home computer and its peripherals is 1)complicated and 2)mostly rumors to me 3)something that I think gets emphasized but is not so necessary (like an air conditioner in an automobile is nice but not required). I am going to attempt to answer this and I make no guarantee that what I am about to say and suggest is accurate.

There should be a color profile for your monitor. Photoshop and I think Firefox browsers can utilize them to make viewing images on your monitor consistent. I also have a hunch that not using any color management would do the same thing.

If your Photoshop has been configured to use the profile for your printer, then seeing images via Photoshop display will show you what a printed version should look like (which is little splats of ink) and it would be different than what the browser displays (which is little charged particles emitting color).

My comments here are biased, although I tried to remove the bias. I think that color management is perhaps the most over-rated idea for home computer usage and it is so complicated that getting it set up properly is beyond the ability of most home computer users. I don't think it is a one button application option as it has been presented. -- carol 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise QI sub-gallery concept?

see Commons_talk:Quality_Images#What_is_the_purpose_of_these_galleries.3F --Tony Wills 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose for editing

What would be the purpose for editing talk pages and reorganizing galleries?

This page has been edited -- 2 days of discussion of gallery vs. category have been removed and it was done by someone with direct access to the computers (the history has been edited as well).

The galleries get reorganized, the images are added chronologically so the scattering of them has to be done manually.

Is it a case of we do this because we can do this or what other purpose would there be? Perhaps a college paper absolute power corrupts? I personally do not believe in either half of that -- I don't believe in absolute power and I don't believe that power corrupts.

Suggestions as to the reasons for the edits? -- carol 08:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for people with sufficient rights to remove edits from the history without direct access to the machines, but I don't think that is what happened in this case. I think you might be looking for Commons_talk:Quality_Images#category_vs_gallery? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was. Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- carol 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All very confusing really ;-) --Tony Wills 11:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to keep track of things -- with the exception that having the four that are in the main gallery coorelate with the ones in the individual galleries (for the few that can do that) has been helpful for me finding mistakes that either I made or it was made to look like I made.

Isn't the discussion of this and of other problems with that page (like gallery vs category) more appropriate on the talk page of the gallery page and discussions of contest things be here? -- carol 14:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from this discussion about why that discussion is not here, we are having that discussion over there, not here. So everything is where it is meant to be (apart from this discussion about that discussion). PS QIC isn't a contest page, FP is the popularity contest :-) --Tony Wills 11:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity contests (which I first really saw in high school) are more interesting at the 20th reunion. Popularity tends to be parasitic within closed environments (like high school) and it was impressive to me how much the popular people turned out to be simply very interesting people just like everyone else after working through 20 years of a less closed environment. Oh, yeah, and after puberty finished its 'thing'. -- carol 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QICpromoted template

I had my first attempt with applying this template with some images that had completed CR. There were some fuzzy areas for me while applying them.

One of the images had an original uploader (photographer) and an editor. I put the template on the two user pages for one image. Both of those people were involved with the image while it was a nominee.
One of the images went through heavy and destructive (my opinion) editing while in CR. As I obediently moved it into the QI Gallery, the photographer uploaded a beautiful version of the image, one that I would not have opposed like I did the edited version. I actually removed the QICpromoted template from the editors talk page and put it on the photographers talk page instead. The photographer had not been involved (in what I could see) with the image while it was in CR.

In the fuzziness of those two situations, I have the feeling that I followed if not the rules, at least I followed the spirit of the rules. Critique? Additional guidelines for when other fuzzy situations appear? -- carol 10:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in notifying both original uploader and editors.

In the second case (where an image has been subsequently modified), it is probably best to simply nominate the new version for QI - this applies to all images modified after being promoted, as one person's 'improvements' are often another's 'degradations'. If the new version doesn't succeed then revert to the QI version and suggest the uploader uploads the new version under a different name. --Tony Wills 09:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely partial edits

Recently there have been votes with justifications like these:

"Every little bit of my involvement with this image is emotionally inspired and lacking any effort on my part to be impartial and look and judge just the image."
"I don't like the way it makes me feel about myself… my vote reflects that."

Should votes that are admittedly and explicitly partial like this really be counted? I feel that considering votes which have nothing at all to do with image quality makes QI a rather pointless institution. --bdesham ★ 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure don't count them. Things I did not say was 'cheesy photoshop canned effect' and those probably should not count either. -- carol 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption here is that if you don't actually state that the vote is emotional then emotionally inclined votes do not exist? -- carol 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we should assume good faith normally, but when a user states that he or she is acting in bad faith (and voting without regard to image quality at QIC is bad faith), we should certainly discount that part of the user's contributions. --bdesham ★ 14:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bear is the first obvious zoo image that I have seen in QIC. The other time that I saw obvious zoo images was in FPC. They had a discussion about how they don't want images that are obviously from a zoo. It was something that I agree with for this venue. And that is a fact, btw. I don't like that I really enjoyed the bears at the Detroit Zoo who had learned how to 'perform' for the visiting people. I stayed and watched extra long in case they would do that again even. Some decades later, and I feel a disgust with myself back then. Do you think that photographs shouldn't make people think or cause an emotional response? -- carol 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we need to start judging the validity of peoples votes to the extent of discounting them (unless they're blatant vandalism). If a user is just being disruptive then they'll probably get blocked in due course ;-). Carol is sometimes rather oblique with her comments/reviews, but there is usually something of direct relevance if you ask - it would of course smooth the way through multiple cultures and backgrounds if she was a bit more direct ;-). If you disagree with a QI review (however 'wrong' it is), then we have a simple CR process where we can overturn such aberrations and continue on our merry way :-) --Tony Wills 09:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken signatures?

It appears that some recent change affected some editors, including myself, and our automatic signatures are not converted to proper signatures, instead remaining --~~~~. See number of "Please sign with name and date (four tildes)" comments in the nomination boxes.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the page code, checking the templates. --Calibas 05:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err... not templates, subpages. Commons:Quality images candidates/Nomination seems to be fine. I'm not an expert on all the inner workings though. I posted a message at Commons:Help desk. --Calibas 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COM:VP#sigs_in_galleries_not_working says there's a new parser and signatures no longer work in galleries, hopefully this will be fixed soon. Calibas 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the devs don't help you, help yourself ;-). I just wrote and globally activated a piece of javascript code that automatically converts four tildes to the correct signatures. It is only activeon the QIC/candidate_list page in edit mode. Check it out. Oh, and be careful when editing old sections with residual unconverted four-tildes, they'll be converted to your own signature even if somebody else left them!! --Dschwen 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, can you explain that old sections problem again? -- carol 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you niticed that some people apparently didn't follow the signature instructions and just put their four tildes as usual under their comment. Those four tildes are still there, but when someone edits that section the next time, all four tildes will be replaced by the editors signature. I have no way of checking who inserted them. Actually, I might as well just remove all stale sigs and you can forget about this issue :-) --Dschwen 16:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that is what I thought you said. I am so inclined to just strip the entries where they could not follow the somewhat simple instructions that I will probably not touch it for a while. My artists and photographers can be stupid but supporters should be comments did not seem to go over real well anyways.... -- carol 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Daniel. But I wonder why the four tildes thing cannot be put to work again in the original scope - Alvesgaspar 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. The comment from a developer was basically that the working signatures were realized using an ugly hack in the old parser. I guess they are willing to sacrifice functionality to keep the new code clean. And apparently working signatures in galleries are of such low priority that no one bothers implementing a clean solution. --Dschwen 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, it appears to be putting 5th for the date, not really sure why as from a quick look the JS seems to be a function for the date. --Dori - Talk 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got it, it took lots of (refreshes|cache purges) to update though. --Dori - Talk 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you're right, even in my own edit. How odd. I didn't even notice. --Dschwen 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer working for me, was working fine before. Is it still working for anyone? --Dori - Talk 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a second try it did, weird. --Dori - Talk 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of QIC

[1] this is an interesting developement and something that we should watch and consider for the future functioning of QIC Gnan garra 10:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gnan, you started this thing? -- carol 21:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's User:Lupo's work. --Dschwen 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at Commons_talk:Quality_images that made me ask that. -- carol 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Lupo, I saw a discussion about it elsewhere on commons and thought after playing that a couple of those features, could be used as an alternative to the current gallery format. From what I understand its still in development. Though if we look at possible uses consider if it would make life easier, also need to consider QICbot and his wonderful author/operator because thats where changes will have the biggest impact. So whats everybodys thoughts. Gnan garra 14:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four archives per year? And QICBot getting the images from a human sorted set of galleries here? Sorting the images on one page would be an improvement.... -- carol 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image

I wonder why the HDR image was removed from discussion. [2] --Nevit 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed, just moved. See Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Stable :-) --Dschwen 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks. --Nevit 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User notification change

Hey everyone, I made a little change to QICbot and the {{QICpromoted}} template. When delivering the notification the bot also delivers the reviewer comments [3]. They are folded by default and can be unfolded with a mouse click. It increases the wikitext amount per notification significantly, but not the rendered and shown amount on the talk page. I felt that some reviewers comments, constructive criticisms, and suggestions might get overlooked if they just disappear in the archives. I hope everybody is cool with it. Otherwise I can always revert. --Dschwen 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is good idea, what do others think of a {{QICdeclined}} template to be added by the QICbot with the review. That way we all get the feed back not just promoted images. Gnan garra 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of depressing and discouraging, at least to me it is. Personally, I already have hordes of horrible photographs (film and digital) that I kept; the idea being that perhaps I will not make the same mistakes over and over again. The same thing about SVG and artwork. -- carol 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~edited~~censored, sometimes humor get lost in the cultural difference of the english language Gnan garra 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture? -- carol 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to jump to the future and assume that what was really wanted here was for me to guess what offense my mentioning refrigerator doors could have caused to the determination that this was actually a cheap and not well thought out psychological ploy. Instead, I will consider a world where censorship without an attempt to communicate has a different set of very real unrewarding circumstances. My goal is to encourage the belief that (in particular between English speaking people) understanding can easily be had once the idea that it is ok-fine to censor is removed from the environment. -- carol 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionRecently, I have had problems with the QIC notifications. If you look at my discussion page, you can see a QIC promotion template ("Image:Yumi name of parts.svg"), which I have promoted, yet (of course) not nominated or authored. Why did the notification end up on my page instead of Fukutaros? This has happened to me before, and I moved the notification manually. I will do it again, but I would like to know how this happened - did I make a mistake? Cheers, --JDrewes 10:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I followed QICBots contributions to quickly get to the archive. It was clear to me in the archive that you were the supporter and had nothing to do with the creation and nomination -- but I am not software. Perhaps QICBot is testing the integrity of the participants? This has happened to me as well (QICBot notifying me incorrectly about an images promotion) -- although, not recently. People are different, but I personally find it to be abhorrent to get credit for things I did not do; and it does negate the initial message of the template which for me was 'photographer or artist here'. -- carol 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Alvesgaspar

Alvesgaspar is a partial user. On the right piture we can read:Decline A fine composition spoiled by a very poor image quality. Was it taken with a mobile phone camera? - Alvesgaspar See the candidate picture post by Alvesgaspar on left. When i see the number of propositions who are decline by Alvesgaspar, i' m waiting for better proposition from him.--Toubabmaster 11:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you had two images reviewed and declined by Alvesgaspar, Sonchus March 2008-1 by Alvesgaspar was also in that same day but was promoted. For the record I also had two images I nominated on the 23rd both declined. You can place the images into the Consensual Review section for additional opinions, IMHO looking at your two images the harbour had a compositional issue with a bush in the foreground obscuring the main subject, I would delcined on that basis. The second one of the island has a tilted horizon(this is fixable) but it already has a portion of the island cut off to correct the tilt would result in cutting more of the island off again making the composition a reason not to promote as QI. Remember that QI is one person review you can ask for additional opinions, the opinions are of the image not the author. Please try not to take it personally, from my own experience when one is declined it kinda hurts sometimes more than others. What I've learnt to do when it does hurt is I just dont log on for a couple of days that way I wont make some rash comment that will offend. Gnan garra 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry but

First picture: "Always use the best available size and quality in these small cameras!" Alvesgaspar don't speak about the picture, i can take it personally.(I think there is a problem about Civility)

Second picture: "Too small" I find it "too short" to explain why this pic is decline. Last week two others pics where decline by Alvesgaspar with same comments.

Look Image:Sonchus March 2008-1.jpg on 23 March. We can read "Focus, DOF, lighting, composition, color, perfect". I think there is a big problem about Neutral point of view (bad faith). --Toubabmaster 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it this must be some kind of language misunderstanding (I hope so). If you read the guideline concerning resolution, it says ...2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more.... The two images you have nominated are each about 1 megapixels which in my opinion is far below the guideline. Quite frankly, 1 mega photos do not stand a chance here. In Alves first review comment he comments about the size and also gives some advice concerning jpg compression and using the maximum resolution on your camera. I consider this constructive feedback. In his second review it is very short referring to the size. IMO the nominations are not even close to having the resolution expected at QIC, especially the first, which is an easy-to-take camera. Therefore I do not see Alves review as personal at all or too short. I do not know your camera, but at least with the settings used (I do not know if a larger resolution is possible?) it is not capable of producing QI material. Sorry to say that. You are not alone, I have very great difficulties getting QIs with my (probably better) compact camera. Only if I stitch several photos together can I get QI quality (nowadays), the bar was lower last summer. I understand if it frustrates you, that the equipement may be a limitation, but it is really not personal, (and actually, if I were you, I would drop an apology to Alves). Notice, that there are other ways to get constructive feedback on your photography, namely at Commons:Photography critiques. And if you like a competitive environment, I could also suggest that you take a look at the Valued Images project, which is close to being launched. Here the focus is not so much on the technical quality of the photographs, more on the value of the subject. And if you are hurt by these comments, do use the Gnan garra advice. Don't beat a dead horse.-- Slaunger 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Gnangarra you help me to understand why my pics are refused. The problem is not here. No words about this picture Image:Sonchus March 2008-1.jpg it's more easy like that. If you don't want to understand why i think Alvesgaspar is a partial user (with rude comments), I can do nothing for you. --Toubabmaster 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links to rules

I don't want to offend anyone, but when there is recent joiner (or rejoiner, I don't know the history nor if it is a new user name for an old user) but when I see someone seeming to want to police a process, it becomes interesting to see how the new officer polices it. Or is this a new bot being written to follow Alves rules for FPC? I am very confused....

Also, and maybe somewhat related (I would like to think not), does anyone else remember when Lycaon used to seem to understand biological nomenclature? -- carol 11:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Carol, perhaps because of my English, perhaps because I know so little, I had difficulty in figuring out the topic. --Nevit Dilmen 13:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native English speaker either, but I think it's more Carol's way of speaking. You have to prod her to get her to speak her mind more plainly. How about it Carol, some more detail as to what concerns you? You have to be more explicit, otherwise we have to assume a lot of things, and probably not get what you're talking about. --Dori - Talk 13:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have just been a few days of nominations which had been marked for discussion being moved to CR with a polite link to a rule that said nothing about when they needed to be moved. It felt like a strong arm that was in need of having something to be a strong arm for (strong arm meaning, a person who likes to make things work a certain way). So, I in turn made some wrong moves so that the enforcer of rules could have some actual broken rules to enforce. Those wrong moves were reverted without a link to the rules or anything like what had been going on.

More simply, nothing wrong was going on, yet rules were cited and an unbounded strength exhibited. I have no problem with strong people, usually they just need something to be strong for -- so I purposely made some edits that disregarded the rules, but those were reverted by erasure and no 'courtesy link' to the rules was pasted. I would like my courtesy link, please! -- carol 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some diffs? --Dori - Talk 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually started soon after this and ended right before this (or that behavior ceased then) or perhaps after this; that last link -- I guess that if I were really a member of the status quo that I should have said something like 'it is wiki and as soon as you fix it it will work'. I reverted some 'votes' because the voters did not care enough to work with the software as is. To understand a good photograph does not imply an understanding of software; that being said, I think that if a person is unable to handle the software, it is the wrong venue to express opinions of photographs with for that individual. Also, it had a hint of being something like You are not serving me to my standards; so -- I am not loyal like a dog, just always being faithful and loving and loyal to whatever 'owner' asserts themselves -- I am however loyal to an idea. I cannot think of an example of this in the zoo -- perhaps Lycaon can help. For myself, if I cannot fix the software but still want to use it, I work with it. I find it rude for people to have the expectation that others will do this for them and belittling to all involved. The demonstration that I am wrong about this would involve those people with the expectations of the software to do that work of cleaning up those signatures themselves. QED

here is one although the courtesy link to the rules which do not say anything about when discussion images are moved was not provided.
I didn't see the diff that produced this but the comment made there with the courtesy link to the rules is right there.
The diffs that I found actually made it appear as if I had done those edits and signed with Ianare's signature. I assure you that this was not what happened -- especially as I rather like moving things when it is slow or less backed up. I think that software could never have that sense of timing and I think that it is something nice with the nomination process here and I don't think that I am the only person who can do that. I do think that I can do that though.

I would also like to point out that it was right after I made the suggestion that the rules get read to people attempting to participate in the newer nomination process that the thumbnails included in Beyond Silence's signature got really large. There is a big difference though, from my POV. A gang mentality which does not accept photographs is, well, kind of funny and sad, to the gang. It doesn't change the 'quality' or 'usefulness' nor anything about the photograph -- it just says, we are a big self-defining gang and you are not a part of us. My answer, if this were ever directly stated would be '...and?' or 'The implication is that as a big abusive gang that this is appealing?' Such a dogpacks are not so good for improvement, in my opinion. But to point to a newer nomination process that has more complicated rules and might need such attention -- is that a bad or jealous or immature suggestion? That what you have demonstrated that you can and are willing to do might have a place?

I have successful experience working with groups of people in real life. The success always ended at a point where a human being changed a fact or stretched rules to get rid of me -- not a real failure. I can show that people are idiots and assholes and abusive of privilege; but mostly I can show that it is just a few that are like that.

I recently mentioned to Dori that I was a little tired of the gang of people who are using their parents money or people they know, or exactly the phrase I used and want to mention here was who did they blow -- it really has the flavor lately of who did the blow. In my extremely limited experience with that, this is not the best evocation of confidence for the judgement of photography or how a nomination process should be run. -- carol 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't noticed any bots moving things to discuss, so I still think it's users that need to do it. And it would be courteous for the user adding discuss to the template to move it to CR. What is wrong with that? I also don't see that any users are asserting any special privileges (unless you mean that just editing a page is a privilege). --Dori - Talk 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

70% of the bot suggestion was me being rude under the guise of being a dumb blonde. 30% chance that it was actually software doing the deed as there was some consistency to the deed that was being done. Do you think that the person/people I accused of being a bot might take it personally and be invited to take a wiki-break? I have seen histories change; I think. That would take privileges on the computer that is hosting the software; more than just privileges within the software. I use software that changes file times; I do this to keep a diary of sorts; an example, I wrote about a 2004 concert in 2007 and turned the date back to 2004. For me it was like filling out the page in a diary where I go to the day printed on the page. Dori have you encountered or used software like that? -- carol 05:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I really don't see people who have access to directly modifying the history being that interested in QIC. There's no point to it, unless one of them really wants to mess with you :) --Dori - Talk 05:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User:Hedwig Storch

QIC has been categorized as User:Hedwig Storch, is this a new and/or intentional thing? -- carol 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hm...somehow I don't even understand where the category tag is. Nothing against Hedwig Storch, I am sure she is a great person ...but I don't think it was intended to be like that. :) --AngMoKio 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my eyes nor my browsers search thingie could find it. Perhaps if I get a screenshot of it, circle it and put it on my web site, it will be quickly removed like the Zoology category did from FPC.... -- carol 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone ;-)) Lycaon 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Version of declined Picture

Hello, when a picture is declined, can I delete my nomination to nominate a new version under the same filename? --Berthold Werner 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identity abuse

Someone used my identity here to support a nomination. I don't know how this was possible as the history of the page tells it was me. But it wasn't ! Aparentely my signature was inserted after the text it refers to -- Alvesgaspar 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The comment was actually made prior to your edit by Thermos here, but his signature ~~~~ apparently did not expand to his user name, probably because he had JavaScript disabled in that edit. The first user hereafter (with Javascript enabled) who has the edit page open and does any edit, even a null edit (does not actively change anything himself) will result in an expansion of ~~~~ to the new users signature. If I look at your contributions araound that time it seems you were active and the other activities "look like you". Could the explanation be that you actually edited the page at that time with the intention to do QI page maintenance by inserting the new May 10 date? And in that process you (of course) did not notice you were editing a page which had an unrendered ~~~~? If this is the explanation it is not account abuse, but rather a very inconvenient sideeffect of the "needs JavaScript enabled" feature needed to make the signatures work right. If we unravel the recent history of QIC I guess it is likely that youre not the first victim on this apparent identity abuse. -- Slaunger 20:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! Yes, it makes sense. My apologies to Thermos for having mistaken him for an identity pirate... Alvesgaspar 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole JS situation is a bit unfortunate (reason is a bug in the mediawiki software that was introduced a few months ago). If someone has a clever idea how to prevent such mis-signings. I'm all ears. --Dschwen 20:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I know one way to do it, but it results in unfamiliar notation for the forum regulars. The idea is to replace the notation

== Mth dd, yyyy ==
<gallery widths="143px">
Image:A QIC candidate.jpg|{{/Nomination|...|}}
...|{{/Pr...}}
</gallery>

with the less familiar

== Mth dd, yyyy ==
{{#tag: gallery|
Image:A QIC candidate.jpg{{!}}{{/Nomination|...|}}
...{{!}}{{/Pr...}}
|widths="143px"}}

When the tag ParserFunction is used I think the expansion of the signatures within the template works. (I have used this in {{VISC}} to make that one work). Establishing the gallery could be done daily by a bot at midnight UTC (just like the new date section is being added on COM:VP). The problem is that users will have to get accumstumed to using {{!}} instead of | as an image/caption seperator. Definately not ideal, but I think it works. I am uncerain if this incinvenience outweighs the (very annoying) apparent identity abuse cases reported by Alves. The notation could also be made simpler by embedding the daily nominations in a template, which uses the tag ParserFunction, such as

== Mth dd, yyyy ==
{{QICs|
Image:A QIC candidate.jpg{{!}}{{/Nomination|...|}}
...{{!}}{{/Pr...}}
}}

Unfortunately, you need to use {{!}} as separator here too. -- Slaunger 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know this notation would work, but it is a major eyesore. And IMO an even bigger inconvenience than the current status. --Dschwen 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a software specialist. But I absolutely don't understand why we migrate to a new version of Mediawiki when we have an old one that worked. Kopfschüttelnd --Ikiwaner 19:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new version includes huge parser performance improvements. And during this rewrite they sacrificed some functionality to get a cleaner more maintainable code base. From the standpoint of the developers and serveradmins this upgrade made a lot of sense. --Dschwen 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you all so shy?

Dear friends, over the last months I noticed an increase of nominations while the number of reviws stays constant. This lead to the situation that the list of nominations got longer and longer and the number of unassessed quality images got quite high. We now have hundreds of unassessed QI. To change the situation a bit I started to review systematically the images which have not been reviewed for many days. Most of them I declined because the good ones usually get promoted quickly.

Now what surprises me: There has been a huge echo on those reviews. 1 2 3 4. Objections to my reviews like "are you blind?" are not unusual. So I ask myself if you have so many pros and cons why didn't you decline or promote the images yourselves days before me? --Ikiwaner 20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the 'rules' for the review system there? Nominated images remain for 8 days, close to 9 for some since the bot only runs through the project once a day. I spent some time for a few months assessing every image that was left right before the eight days were up. The actual rules, 8 days for this and 2 days for that get much stricter enforcement from humans than the bot does with its once a day run. More recently, there was a period of what seemed to be complete nonsense and the nomination of a lot of images that were not being nominated by the photographer which is not as much fun to me; others might disagree and I allowed others to 'run things' that way for as long as they wanted to. It is my time. To the best of my knowledge I am not being paid to do anything here. So helping a bunch of nonsense and being a part of a review system in which people nominate the images of others is not so interesting and fun to be volunteering for. One thing that I would like to see change is this, whenever there is a comment "Your wife should buy you a better camera", I would like to see a photograph of that photographer with that wife. I understand that even that can be hacked but there are some comments from the long time contributors here that give me a very queasy feeling when I read things like that. Oh yeah, and not where I just happen to 'see' couples but on the User pages where they belong. GPL, GNU, all that -- very beautiful when I became involved. Not so beautiful now.... -- carol 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC) oh, and btw, Ikiwaner what reasons are you an unpaid contributor here?[reply]

Sure, I am sorry for this. How ever such a review has hurt you, please let me know and I will do what I can to repair the damage. It was funny to me and about not so funny situations (and indeed, potentially more rude and useless than this review) that I have sensed. I can honestly tell you that if you had asked me about it on my talk page or made a non-aggressive gesture any where, that I would not have had to have been 'caught' to apologize for such a thing as writing "Are you blind" on a review. Can the same be said about others here who might have abused a review system? -- carol 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about having too many nominations and not many reviewers, but I try to review at least as many as I nominate so I'm part of the solution and not the problem. We just need more reviewers, but not everyone feels qualified to do it I think. It's easier to vote if you are part of a mass, but much "scarier" if you are the only one making the decision. It's much less scary to respond to other comments. I respond to the discussions to help out in that area in addition to the other reviews. Of course, not all nominators may be qualified to be reviewers either. -- Ram-Man 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results from "Consensual review"

Are the images from the "Consensual review" section also handelt by QIBot, when they are marked as decline or promoted or must the work be done manually? --Berthold Werner 13:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a manual job, I'm afraid ;-) Lycaon 13:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard work. --Berthold Werner 11:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hehe :-). Closing FP's is even much tougher. Thanks for helping out. Lycaon 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting QIs

I understand that the purpose of QI is not to take the best of Commons or to be exclusive in any manner; any image that meets the quality standard can be promoted. However, I think that in the two-or-so years since QI's inception, that quality standard has shifted. At an En FP nomination, Vanderdecken gave Image:Lamb 09807-a.jpg as an example of an image which does not meet QI standards, and I agree that, if nominated now, it would be unlikely to pass another round at QIC. Any thoughts? I am not suggesting a radical change to the QI process, but I think that it might be a good idea to "re-affirm" QI status, by, say, running images with doubtful quality back through consensual review. Thegreenj 20:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Unlike FP's, I think Qi's should be delistable -- Alvesgaspar 08:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree one of the benefits on having QI being a once recognised always recognised process is that as the technology advances QI will be a usable resource for comparison between then and now. Another is that the process is aimed directly for the people who support Commons, it recognises/encourages the efforts of the person here and now, ie today I supplied a quality image, if the standard shifts which it will with equipment advances I still supplied a quality image today and thats what QI is about. Gnan garra 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many hours is 48 hours?

Is it different in other parts of the world -- 48 hours? -- carol (tomes) 08:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the rules are to change, that is fine by me -- I just don't think that they should be changed via edit war. -- carol (tomes) 08:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the code and insert a edit button per nomination ?

One reason why i'am rarely reviewing pictures here at QIC is the timeconsuming procedure when searching around in this cluttered lists. VIC has done it very well with the edit or review button. Can we have that for QIC, too ? And who was programmed it ? Regards Richard --Richard Bartz 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would require quite some changes as you would need one subpage per nomination (as on FPC and VIC) and you would have to have the parameters embedded in two different templates, as for instance {{VIC}} and {{VIC-thumb}} in VIC - one for diplaying the review page and another preview page with the edit link. If that is done it is trivially easy to have an edit button per nom. But making such a change is really painful, especially the transition from one system to the other (if you want to keep the reviewing process going), as well as quite some changes in bot scripts for promotion and other procedures. -- Slaunger 10:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the current method a bit ineffective. Why not making 1 week of holiday for QIC ? :-) --Richard Bartz 15:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long is a week in Germany? -- carol (tomes) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot now handles consensual review

I finally got to implement the handling of CR entries. It now...

..moves and reformats entries which are changed to Discuss from non-CR to CR automatically. You should go over the entries moved to CR and clarify Supports and Opposes and change to bulleted lists.
..archives and tags entries in CR. For this to work you must change the template from Discuss back to either Promotion or Decline once the votes are in

There might still be some bugs, and the whole thing is most likely less fool-proof than the non-CR handling, but I activated it anyways. Hope that it helps. Caveats are:

The bot looks for the Consensual review heading, and the comment saying new nominations below this line. These should not be edited, unless you want to break the CR handling!
The bot looks for level three headings separating the CR entries. So don't use level two or four headings, unless you want to break the CR handling!
The bot will do the whole promotion thing for the first image in a CR section. If an image is edited and swapped out for a new version, put that version to the front.

Have fun. And be gentle to me about looming bugs, which are likely to f-up and eat COM:QIC alive during the next fwe days ;-) --Dschwen 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Dschwen. A great job as usual. Lycaon 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Nevit Dilmen 09:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just created {{QICtotal}} to make the tallying of CR entries even easier.

Examples

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Dschwen 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Dschwen 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes? Dschwen 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template warns you about missing parameters, and prints the verdict based on the support|oppose scores you supply (yeah, that's really easy, I know, but still saves you some typing ;-) --Dschwen 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the bot and the totals

The bot improvement is kind of cool to read about. I am wondering what the bot and the template does in the case of a draw or a tie vote. -- carol (tomes) 20:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the vote counting still requires human labour. The QICtotal template is purely informative (to document the counting process). What triggers the bot is the use of {{/Promotion and {{/Decline --Dschwen 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to QI shots

I am looking for a QI of a blackbird (Turdus merula) with a cherry in its bill and there is none on Commons ! What a pity ! Cherry time is so short. Are there any on the trees yet by now and a photographer to make a good shot ? Or the blackbird with another berry kind, or even with an earthworm, but a good picture. Thanks. --B.navez (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best I've got are these:

unfortunately not QI, not blackbirds, and not eating cherries :) --Dori - Talk 05:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot and Recently promoted

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted‎ is now maintained by User:QICbot. Tagged images will be moved to the respective QI-category subpages, and the preview galleries on COM:QI are updated automatically. This required major restructuring of the COM:QI subpages. To facilitate the automation of the process all subcategories were moved to their own subpages (with just one gallery section per subpage). Same thing with the preview galleries. --Dschwen (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the Arthropod subcategories! Ouch. So all recent arthropod images were filed as spiders :-). I pulled them out of the archive and put them back onto the recently promoted page. A knowledgable person should take a look and select the correct subcategories (some are just beyond me). Make sure you clear your browser cache to get the newest version of QIhelper.js! --Dschwen (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or someone who has done this before without reducing the number of categories to choose from? -- carol (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a comment

This is an answer to a comment for a picture I nominated. I wrote it into the box first, but that is unnecessary, so I transferred it here:
There are four "good reasons" for the image being as it is: there was only one lamp giving more or less direct light at the table, it was an open-air in the evening so there was almost no ambient light, a flash would have been very disturbing (to the writer reading from his book and to the audience) and finally: the contrast (the silhouette of his profile, the highlight on the book) is what makes the appeal of this image to me. One may like that or not, but "Too dark for no good reason" seems rather like a very personal opinion (aka POV) to me, than an objective judgment. --Tsui (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change the /Nomination to /Discuss if you do this, a bot moves the entry into the lower part of the page. Or, you can opt to move the entry yourself, instructions for how to convert the format from the gallery it was entered in to the "Candidate Review" section (often referred to as CR which my mind expands as "Critical Review") have been provided and can be seen if you select the correct edit link. Humans tend to move the entries more thoughtfully than the bot does, with all due respect to QICBot.... -- carol (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the option to move an image to the consensual review section. But since I nominated one of my own images here I do not want to expand the dicussion about it to unnecessary lenghts. There are quite a lot of people looking at the images proposed for QI. If all of them agree with the current decline-review and noone changes it to CR, the image obviously is not good enough for QI for one or another reason. Of course I think the picture is worth a positive review, otherwise I would not have nominated it, but I do not want to push my own POV. --Tsui (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a discussion about it on the talk page for the whole review system is the way to not expand the discussion and a way to not push your own POV? -- carol (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is a way to let the reviewer know, that I do not find his comment was very ... helpful. There are no talk pages for the single nominations, so - for the reasons given above - I answered here. -Tsui (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because one person tags it as decline and noone else moves it doesnt mean that they also agree, it just that once an image is reviewed what ever the outcome people just move onto reviewing other images. The only time I'll move an image(besides my own) is if it gets reviewed before/while I'm deciding and I dont agree with it, or the wording of the review isnt acceptable. I'd say move to Gnan garra 06:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, consensual.... -- carol (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that it is not unusual for people who nominated their own pictures to move them to the consensual review section. It may lead to a lot of such reviews, because everyone who nominates a picture basically thinks it is worth a promotion and may want to discuss a decline. Thank you for moving it! Next time I will either do so myself, will just accept the decision (like in the past) and/or use the talk page of the reviewer if I think the review needs an answer. --Tsui (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that everyone who nominates his/her picture thinks that it should be promoted there are several issues with this argument. 1) the nominator might have overlooked an issue with the image (happend to me before), 2) the nominator might be unaware of the criteria for QI, 3) the reviewer did a sloppy review, 4) the reviewer was unaware of the criteria. Moving your own picture to CR is perfectly valid IMO, we are not voting here, we are exchanging arguments and reviewing the images. If you disagree with the review it is constructive and essential for the review process to write why you think the picture deserves QI status, and why you think the reviewer was wrong. --Dschwen (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Else:Unfortunately, I need to interrupt this perfectly good "while" loop -- it is not always true that everyone who nominates an image thinks that it should be promoted. -- carol (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I fell into that old trap of thinking all peoples actions are rationally motivated ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test your eyes (and your screen)

[4] at www.xrite.com --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I scored 48, with lower hue discrimination approximately in the middle of the spectrum (green-blue). adamantios (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really hard! I scored 20 with my new monitor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't find it that difficult: 8 with a lowest hue discrimination towards the right (85%) of the spectrum. Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this really fun link! I scored 4 with discrimination in turquoise. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votings of Mrmariokartguy

I don't think that these votings are acceptable. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to manage it is to mark them as discuss and have the strong wish after that that the others who have been involved will support it in CR. They do that in FP where it is easier (needing two positives for each one negative). I admit that there have been occasions that I thought that one particular user needed to have every single review disputed but when I looked at the reviews and the images at full size, there was never a "rule" that worked 100% of the time. -- carol (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the user's votes generally lack merit, and seem to suggest that he's not acquainted with the review guidelines. I see his talk page also contains warnings concerning copyright violations and out-of-scope uploads, which may also suggest a certain unfamiliarity with how Commons operates.

These things aren't black marks in themselves, since all users have to start somewhere as they develop. (Speaking personally, there are plenty of ropes that I'm still learning.) However, if the user's votes seem consistently arbitrary or at odds with the guidelines, then I think it'd reasonable to strike them and offer further guidance on his talk page. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal regarding the organization of Valued images and interrelationship to QI

Hi,

Inspired by the excellent current scheme and tool used for organizing QIs into suitable topic galleries, Eusebius has drafted a proposal for an analogous system at Valued images and a few iterations have been done to try and fine tune it. Emphasis has been on reusing as much as reasonable from the QI ssyetm concerning subpage names. This is to facilitate QI-VI inter project linking of analogous subjects, which should lead to improved usability for repository users browsing Commons for good images.

However, due to the inherently different natures of VI and QI, we have suggested some deviations from the QI system to better match the type of nominations seen at VI. For instance, we have a larger influx of historic images than at QI, whereas there are perhaps more aesthetically beautiful images at QI.

I would like to hear the comments of QI regulars/organizers to the proposed VI organization. Is there something we could do differently? Are there better ways to organize images which lead to less ambiguousness in the selection of a matching gallery? -- Slaunger (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot and Recently promoted images

Hi, QICbot removed promoted QIs today, but hasn't populated Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted, is it normal? --Eusebius (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the images removed on october 21st were added to the recently promoted page on october 20th. I don't get it, but apparently no QI has been forgotten. --Eusebius (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plasma-lamp.jpg

It looks like this image was featured in 2005. Isn't a bit redundant to nominate it here? J.smith (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About QI delist/demotion

Hi, has there been a discussion about that in the past? Was it considered as not suitable for QIs, or is it that nobody has found it necessary so far? --Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was (though I have no idea where it is)! And I always found that, contrarily to featured pictures, QI can and should be deslisted whenever no longer satisfy the present quality standards (or were wronlgy promoted). The only problem I see is the practical one: how to do it and with what criteria . My opinion is that for a QI to be demoted it should have at least 2 (or 3) delist votes and a ratio of 2:1 delist/keep. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with QI delisting any image promoted thru QI, the purpose of QI is to recognise technically good images at the time it was uploaded, delisting already recognised images defeats this purpose. Gnan garra 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gnangarra. Also, the practical difficulties mentioned by Alvesgaspar would make any such process very unwieldy. --Florian Prischl (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot removing unreviewed images

I notice the bot removed several unreviewed images in this edit. Is this normal? The edit summary was "extract processed nominations", but none of the images in the 30th November section had been reviewed. TimVickers (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that is part of the process. However, that edit summary could be made a bit more explicit. Perhaps "extract expired nominations"? TimVickers (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous promotion

I stopped the promotion of File:Bee_in_apple_blossom.jpg in its tracks. This seems to be a clear mistake, without much room for interpretation. The image is below the 2MP minimum for no reasons other than the author not wanting to provide the original size. --Dschwen (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical: the /Nomination template

Could we remove the parameter numbers in the version of the template that is proposed to nominators? It consistently breaks the notification templates on the user pages (because the parameters are reused by the bot, with a modified order). At least until the bot is made more robust. --Eusebius (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Maybe add a note somewhere for users who need them (like with references to diffs). Lycaon (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

Would somebody be kind enough to translate Fingalo's reviews? --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leider sind meine Englischkenntnisse nahe bei Null, weil ich als Kind in der französischen Besatzungszone nur Französisch hatte, und später brauchte ich es als Jurist nicht. Ich bemühe mich, passende Beurteilungen in anderen Bildern zu finden und per copy & paste zu verwenden. Fingalo (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne parle pas un mot d'allemand, mais si vous parlez français... :-) Je ne critique pas le fait que vous écriviez en allemand, je demandais juste si quelqu'un pouvait traduire. Mais les traducteurs automatiques donnent l'idée générale. English version: I'm not saying you shouldn't review in German, I was just asking if somebody could translate. But automatic translators can give the general idea of your remarks. --Eusebius (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issue

Apparently, QICbot has failed to complete its latest run. I've reverted its actions and run QICbot's code with my own bot account to complete the process properly. I think a few images, which had been supported/opposed shortly after 12:08 UTC two days ago, have been promoted or declined although they were scheduled for tomorrow. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eusebius (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logs show a socket error (connection reset by peer). Must have been a glitch on the mediawiki servers. Haven't seen that one before. --Dschwen (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple versions, single review

Last time I suggested that multiple-image reviews could be a problem, I was answered that I should be more flexible, that bots were only tools and that their use should not influence the QI nomination/review procedures. Fair enough. I'd just like to point out that QICbot doesn't read minds better than me and will easily promote the wrong candidate when they are several ones for the same review. This is why I don't close nomination that I foresee to be problematic. Maybe a clear (and above all unique) way of presenting such reviews could be thought of, and the bot could be adapted to it, I guess. Or, somebody should watch every single action of QICbot and correct it on the basis of what he may have understood from the reviews. I'm obviously not intelligent enough to interpret them so it won't be me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility of pictures: copyright holder and creator

The COM:QIC#Guidelines says the following, at three different places:

Intro: "All nominated images should be the work of Commons users".
Image page requirements: "Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons by the copyright holder under a suitable license".
Creator: "Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status".

It is subject to interpretation when the candidate pictures are representation of PD works of arts. When the work of art is 3D, no problem, since the photographer holds copyright over its creation. When it is 2D, however, the WMF considers that the photographer cannot claim copyright on the picture because it lacks creativity. Yet, we have promoted, in the past, a lot of picture that could have been {{PD-art}} if they were not the work of Commoners (and I believe some of them were not {{PD-self}} as they should be). Mainly, stained glass works and paintings. It seems to me that it is ok, since the QI project is here to acknowledge the technical aspects, more than the creative aspects (although they're certainly not absent in our reviews). But I've seen, twice, reviewers expressing doubts about it, so I ask the question:

Should we consider photographs of two-dimensional public domain works of art as ineligible for QI status?

Whatever the answer is, the guidelines should definitely be harmonized to reflect our position in a non-ambiguous way. --Eusebius (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've exposed the problem, a little personal thought: shooting a painting in a museum (and sometimes, shooting a stained glass window) can be a real technical challenge, and the QI seal can certainly be a motivation for the work it imples (yeah, right, I like badges, blame me if you want!). --Eusebius (talk)

On the other hand, it can be quite easy to scan a drawing from a book. It certainly depends. I agree that QI should also be used to motivate "painting shooters". The guidelines are probably just trying to avoid "misuse" of QI for people taking other people's work from Flickr and receive the credit for it. --ƛƭƦѦɳҞԳԳ (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yep, the self made requirement is meant limit it our community members efforts Gnan garra 13:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<steps onto soap box, draws back the violin bow> QI History way back when I started the concept of QI the problem that was being able to find good quality images that were the work of the community. By quality I mean technically good, of a size that could be of use in printed material, this came about because user:Pfctdayelise was putting together sets of images to make calenders, the primary criteria was the image had to be the work of the community and over 2000px(ideal print size) from that different themes were then being put together. I spent the better part of a week going thruogh vehicle images to no avail from something like 10,000 images I couldnt find 12 images with a common thread beyond being cars, even then there was only some like 15-17 photographs in total. I saw the solution as being a way of recognising the efforts of those community members who go out there and take these images that illustrated the other projects. These images arent all going to have any wow factor most wouldnt ever be considered as FP in fact many of the images that QI would attract are simple subject well executed encyclopeadic. Eusubius' motivation is what I hoped QI would do, the tag on the user talk page was to encourage, motivate and let the photographers know that their efforts are appreciated. In short IMHO the stain glass, 2d artwork etc are QI candidates because they were made/taken by the community they arent always easy to do but still need to be well executed. I'll jump off the soap box now, put the violin away, its the community's process and you guys are the ones driving it now. You are all doing very well, carry on... Gnan garra 13:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of work of art are certainly acceptable. There have already been many such images promoted. The uploader should mention the source, i.e. is the image taken in a museum, or scanned from a book. Obviously the technical difficulties are taking photographs of the work of art, not scanning it. Therefore only original photographs should be accepted. If the uploader lies about the source, the issue is much more important than being able to nominate an image for QI. Yann (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, QI is about images, not photographs, and properly scanning and retouching a document can be quite technical as well, I suppose. --Eusebius (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Yann on this: photographs of 2D art are acceptable. Scans are not. Retouching may sometimes be technical and elaborate but that's post-processing and it may leave us with a very thin and disputable line: I could as well grab a flickr-image from the net and post-process it into a quality image (e.g. straightening, noise reduction, white-balancing) and then claiming that the difficult and technical work involved merits a QI stamp. Better avoid problems and draw a 'thick' line. Lycaon (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make my personal opinion clear (because I'm the one who stirred up the hornet's nest on this topic): I'm perfectly ok with 2D reproduction images being promoted to QI, but the guidelines are misleading here instead of clearly defining what is worth a QI badge and what not. I'm not sure yet how to cast this into a guideline, maybe something like QI promotion requires uploader's significant contribution to the quality level of this image. Would that fit? --ƛƭƦѦɳҞԳԳ (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restoration can be a "significant contribution to the quality level" of an image. However I am not sure that is what we want to promote: see this case File:First flight2.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Yann has a point, I don't think the QI criteria are adapted to the restoration of historic documents, especially old photographs. --Eusebius (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The important here is the photographer: the person doing a scan or a restoration is not a photographer. Yann (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This brings me to another issue: What about a high quality 2D reproduction that involved a lot of work and know-how using a camera (so it may qualify for QI) vs. a simple scan of the same source that yields similar quality (which obviously does not qualify)? --Afrank99 (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yann: there doesn't have to be a photographer, it's said nowhere. The QI project accepts vector and raster illustrations, I don't think this is questionned here.
        Well ok. If it is a photograph, the photographer should be a contributor. 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
      - Afrank99: I don't think the subjects are the same for photography and scan. You don't scan a painting and you (usually) don't photograph a printed document. I think there are few objects for which one would wonder what is the best way of rendering it (between scan and photograph). I'm not sure it's the right argument here. --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It can get even trickier. See File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (1).jpg and File:Offterdinger Rotkappchen (2).jpg, both now running for QI: there are technical photographs, but not of the original paintings, but of a book printing. Yann (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for everybody, I propose to completely remove the uploader-guideline. After all, it's about the quality of images and to separate them from the rest, regardless of who made them. --Afrank99 (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of that. It is against the historical aim of the project, and it doesn't solve the issue of this thread. --Eusebius (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't want images made by third parties, i.e. NASA, etc. so we need a criteria about who created the image. Yann (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can change the policy on the basis of a vote with only 4 or 5 persons (only two support votes so far). QI nominators and reviewers, please take a moment to have a look at the proposed rephrasings of the policy! --Eusebius (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have voted, only the second proposal has received support vote, but this is only two votes. Should we update anything in the guidelines? --Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its been open for sometime now, I'd say that while only one proposal gained any support(2) it did so without actual opposes, all the others failed to get any actual support only opposes with one exception that had no response at all. I'd suggest that you can be bold and make the changes based on this discussion. Gnan garra 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

From what I read here, the options are the following (forgive me if I forget something):

The creator of the image must be a Wikimedian, reproductions of two-dimensional works of art are not eligible.

.

The creator of the image must be a Wikimedian, photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art are eligible but scans are not.

Support Lycaon (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really happy with this one, but I'm not really happy with any, so I won't vote at all. --Afrank99 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It has the advantage of clarity, but I'm convinced about the a priori exclusion of scans (and "restorationists"). --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral would think ...but scans are not. is redundant given its specifies photographical which I presume means created using a camera Gnan garra 12:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to propose a rephrasing? Personally I don't see the "scan" part as a restriction over the first part, but as another information about another kind of work. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suggest something like "....Photographs of the original 2D artworks are eligable, where as scans of reproductions arent. Gnan garra 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And scans of originals? That could happen. --Eusebius (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "reproductions" not originals, ie books, catalogues, prints etc Gnan garra 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so according to your proposed rephrasing, if I happen to scan an original (a small size drawing, for instance), it might be eligible? --Eusebius (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could scan the Mona Lisa whether it meets QI should be upto the reviewer, but maybe we should base scans on Bridgeman v Coral a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original and therefore arent QI. Gnan garra 08:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This quote seems to support the first proposal (PD-art = ineligible). --Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a degree of individual effort in a photograph that can be considered, scans are more mechanical Gnan garra 09:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the image must be a Wikimedian, reproductions of two-dimensional work are eligible.

Comment not exactly mutually exclusive with previous: if I oppose this one, I shouldn't support previous one. Lycaon (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to support or oppose the truth value of the sentence, but the choice of it for inclusion in the policy. Anyway, I get your point :-) --Eusebius (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the image must be a Wikimedian, reproductions of two-dimensional work are eligible as soon as the work of the wikimedian is a significant contribution to the quality level of this image.

Oppose Too woolly (interpretations can vary too much). Lycaon (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not clear enough. Yann (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The idea is nice but it doesn't help drawing a line. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No restriction is made on the creator of the image.

Oppose Lycaon (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yann (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI's foundatin is Wikimedian(Commonedian) selfmade works to change this would create a simplified FP process. Gnan garra 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If we're ok about this list of options, I suggest we vote on it (votes go under each line, at most one support per person, for the whole list, and zero, one or several oppositions per person, for the whole list). If you want to propose another option, please go on. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the intended aim of this vote is to pick one sentence, and only one, for inclusion in the QI guidelines in replacement of the inconsistent stuff we have pointed out (the "suitable license" thing would be kept, of course). --Eusebius (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed sentences are OK, but why did you choose the word "picture" instead of "image"? Yann (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specifically intended here. If the term is not the most appropriate, amend my formulation. --Eusebius (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably that some review from a native English speaker would be best. Yann (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we want to avoid nominations like this File:A Vineyard Walk Lucca.jpg: a photograph from a book. I don't know if it can ever get good enough for QI through. Yann (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restorations

Restorations occur to more than just photographs we have restored maps, posters, book covers and documents as well. This subject needs to be discussed as a separate criteria with guidelines specific to evaluating the restoration aspects. IMHO I dont think QI is the right spot for these beacuse those that meet any QI criteria technically for the restoration will also be FP. Gnan garra 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

Done diff. Feel free to improve my phrasing if necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited

I have taken the bold step of reverting ", but scans are not" from the criteria. I didn't see this short discussion previously, so didn't get a chance to contribute nor vote. Although there was a vote for the change, it wasn't exactly over-whelming and there were as many dissenting voices as supports. (And for what it is worth I would have opposed until things were better thought through). I have two objections.

1) A simply worded ban on scans means that people can not submitt scans of their own work. What springs to mind immediately are scans of things originally photographed onto film, eg File:The Photographer.jpg. Some photographers prefer to work with film to this day, but get their pictures professionally digitised (ie scanned) afterwards, do you mean to ban them?

2) Technically there is little difference in scanning and digital photography, except perhaps consistant quality :-). If I set up a camera on a stand and take studio photographs of a work it would be acceptable, whereas if I used a flatbed scanner it would not?

Was the 'no scans' related to perceived effort or perceived creativity? If I use a $20000 camera with everything set to automatic am I less creative also?
A scan from a magazine or book is going to have pretty low intrinsic qualities due to printing techniques such as dithering, so is unlikely to achieve QI anyway, especially if better images can be taken of the subject directly. Of course in the case of old manuscripts etc, the scans purpose may well be to show the printed item, printing artifacts and all.
QI is about encouraging members to create high quality images for use in Wikimedia projects. If someone manages to (forgive me, I have used this example before ;-) get hold of the Mona Lisa, take it out of its frame and provide us with a high quality scan (eg that shows the layers of paint and texture of the medium), I would probably give them more than a QI award, but QI would be a start :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about your first point: I think it is a phrasing issue only. I was thinking of "two dimensional works of art made by somebody else", or in the public domain, and I think voters had the same thing in mind. --Eusebius (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not clear. I think the whole scanned criteria is really a non-issue, there are only 2 QI that I can find that are scans File:Rogatywka.jpg, File:StrokkurBubble3.jpg and both appear to be scans by the photographer. Of course many others may have been rejected. Can people show me examples of scans by wikimedians of 2D works that otherwise meet QI standards, that should be rejected if nominated? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the issue is not really the scan, but the subject. A photo of a painting is a museum in OK, a photo of a painting from a book should not be IMO. Yann (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we want an image of the Mona Lisa, then a good photo of the painting would always be preferred over a photo/scan from a book simply because of all the printing artefacts that would be seen in the book photo/scan. But for QI we are not judging the image of the Mona Lisa on how well it was painted or printed, but on how well the painting or page is depicted. Of course unless the book had some intrinsic value of it's own we may not be very interested in a photo/scan of the printed version (not FP material), but never the less it could be done well (QI material) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: you can find plenty of scans in the following FP galleries, for instance: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical, Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps, Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media. --Eusebius (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you think neither a photo or scan from a book is acceptable for QI.

I don't think anything, I've just provided examples. --Eusebius (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see there were two seperate replies, I was replying to Yann :-( --Tony Wills (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm still not sure why, or what the fundamental problem is (sorry if I'm being a bit slow here :-). Is the 'subject' of a scan the images and text contained within the page or the page itself? Are we worried that we can not decide whether we are judging how well the scan is done (how well it reproduces everything on the page, blemishes and all), or are we judging how well the image on the page was printed? I would argue that for QI we are judging how well we depict a 3D scene or reproduce a 2D image.

The worry may be that we could be inundated with high quality scans from some book - swamping the QIC system with images involving a 'trivial' amount of work (or are we looking for creativity?). A bit like images consisting of characters from a language (eg the set containing File:U+585A.svg). In that case we simply declined to review them on the basis that they were too trivial. Perhaps what we should do in both of these cases is to review the images as one item (ie review the quality of the set of pages or language script as a whole). --Tony Wills (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree more or less what could be QIC. The issue is more how to write an unambiguous criteria. Yann (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that we do all agree about, or understand the purpose of QI. I think nailing down the purpose will actually define the criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purpose is clear from the beginning. See Gnangarra's message below. Don't you agree with that? Yann (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative or originality requirement?

From the preceding discussion (re eligiabilty of scans etc), there is a theme of creativity or originality being a requirement for QI. Without commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing, I note that the current guidelines don't really seem to encompase this as a requirement (I have not tried to quote selectively, please let me know if I missed something :-) :

"Purpose 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. ... Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons."

"Guidelines All nominated images should be the work of Commons users."

"Creator Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. ... Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible."

"Value Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia projects."

To summerise: QI is to encourage people to contribute (to Commons) high quality images, that they have created.

I interpret this as any 'image' that is not simply copied from elsewhere. Implicitly there is an originality requirement only because of copyright requirements (and not even that if the image is of a PD work etc).

Does anyone read this differently? What do others think QI is for? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're introducing a creativity requirement, I don't think it's the point of the QI project. I think what worries people here is the substantial work (or lack thereof) made by the creator of the picture. It is apparently accepted that in the case of a photograph, the taking of the photograph is enough work (a minima, there is a composition choice). In the case of a scan, if the document and the scanner are of good quality, the work can be very limited, and I think it is for this reason that some people would like the scans off the QI scope: to draw a clear line and avoid endless discussions on individual cases. I'm not convinced that we should do that, because we've had only few scan nominations (if any at all). I would be more worried if one of the recently promoted SVG coats of arms were only assembled from existing elements (even made by Commoners). It was not the case here, the nominator made most of the elements himself, but I hope you get my point. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for you it's not a creative requirement, but some judgement about the amount of effort required. But the purposes of QI appear to be about contribution not about effort expended - about the act of contributing high quality material that is not available elsewhere. We do not judge a photo taken with a $20000 camera as less worthy than one taken with a $100 camera just because less effort is required to meet the quality standard :-). That reminds me that we do expect studio shots to be of the highest quality, I suppose we should just consider scans in an equivalent light - perhaps scans are acceptable, but should be of the highest quality (you can't get a much better controlled environment) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about a large format camera with scanner back, then yes :-) --Afrank99 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QI ~ Self Made source This has naught to do about the choice of equipment used, this is about recognising that for Commons to be a unique collection we need people to get up off their butt and go out into the wilds get the photographs. Scanning a photograph in a book that someone else took or picking an image off a flickr type site is still needed but let these works be considerd at FP. IF a photographer used film to take the photograph then scans that and uploads the digital version here its still their own work, as such its the source not the subject or the equipment. QI is where we direct people who want to see the work of our people or use the works of our people to promote Commons. Hence the requirement of a self-made license, this also then encompasses drawings, diagrams, maps etc that are made by our people hence use of "Image" over photograph or picture. Gnangarra 06:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! So what's the problem then? Lycaon (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gnangarra: So we can agree that references to "scans" is totally irrelevant?
- We come to the description "self made", a concept not spelt out in the guidelines. We agree that QI is not for images scraped off another websites. But beyond that it seems to be that we want to introduce an extra (unrelated) dividing line (for reasons that are still unclear to me). We wish to encourage people to go forth and supply us with high quality images where they pushed the button on the camera (self made)- but we wish to exclude those where the camera was not pointed at a tree/animal/building/stained-glass-window/mozaic/papyrus-scroll etc, but was instead pointed at a book or similar (strip copyright from this argument as the image must of course meet the Commons copyright requirements). For all other QI images we don't demand uniqueness, originality, creativity. Why would we want to not use QI to encourage people to supply high quality images of manuscripts, ancient texts or any other books (with usual copyright provisos), especially if they are not available online elsewhere? --Tony Wills (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scans and photos of books are much much easier, than taking a photo of the original work of art. So it seems that allowing scans and photos of books to compete not very fair. Yann (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a competition, we are encouraging people to supply works that meet a quality standard, we don't really care whether they are a hard working photographer with a poor camera, or a lazy photographer with a good camera. I have some sympathy with the idea that we don't want to devalue the QI award with many 'easy to create' images. But are high quality scans of old books (old to meet copyright needs) going to lower the QI status? QI is to encourage people to provide high quality images of anything that meets the requirements of the wikiprojects, some people like photographing buildings, others butterflies, someone may decide to set up a home studio and photograph every different type of leaf that they can find. I have always seen that the point of QI is, that whatever they contribute, we want them to do it well - to high standards. I am not going to start photographing leaves in a studio because it is an easy way to gather QI awards, but when I photograph things that interest me, I am encouraged to ensure they are of high quality. If someone wants to take the time and trouble to do easy static things like buildings, cars, show dogs, leaves, or even books then I want to encourage them to provide high quality versions at least :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Lycaon: the problem is that Gnangarra's position sounds nice, but has unclear borders. It takes us back to the original problem of this conversation: is a photograph of a 2D work of art "the work of a Wikimedian"? Note: currently, there is nothing such as "the requirement of a self-made license", save the note I have added about the position of the WMF on such pictures. Besides, Gnangarra says that scans are not for QI, but he doesn't say why. Acceptance of scans is not incompatible with the second half of his message, as Tony seems to point out. For me, we're still in the mist. --Eusebius (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think you have a clear idea of my problem.
    Without adding extra criteria, which are not really related to the core goal of improving the supply of quality images to Commons, we can still accept images of books etc and their contents without devaluing QI. I think there are two type of book images, the first is easy to accept - depicting a page in a book, ie showing us the ageing of the paper, the paper quality, the print quality, colour reproduction quality - not very contenious. The second is where a nomination is trying to illustrate some artwork/photo by making an image of a printed version. Here our criteria are about how well they depict the original work of art, I expect printing artefacts and lack of true colour rendition will limit how well a photo of a book can provide a quality rendition of the work of art. If the result is a high quality rendition of the work of art, then what have we lost? Have I missed something ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From COM:QI quality images must be the work of Commons contributors I always thougho this was clear for something to be work of Commons contributor it needed to have a self-made license, which a {{PD-OLD}} type license isnt. But Ok it wasnt so I suggest a clearer definition try A self made work must have a license that lists the work within Category:Self-published work, (at the moment there are about 1,660,000 files(33% of all files on commons) in that category of which QI is subcategory having only 5,500 thats still less than 0.004% ouch.) the definition is base on how copyright law recognises the author/creator. As for scans if you can license a scan under a self made license then its eligable for QI the same aplies to a 2D artworks. QI always revolved around the creator/author(aka license), it wasnt about the subject nor the equipment and there is no wow factor either its a technically good work or its not. Gnan garra 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big fan of translating the "Wikimedian creator" criterion into the licensing field, because it excludes scans and photographs of PD 2D works of art (guidelines say that they should be {{PD-old}}, not {{PD-self}} as I mistakenly stated before). --Eusebius (talk) 06:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Own goals - voting

I've read somewhere very recently about a concern over a vote in a CR of an image by its author, in this case the author wasnt nominator. This isnt about that specific occurance its irrelevant in the scheme of things its passed and the vote wouldnt have or didnt affect the end result of the CR. As a way of having an open discussion without finger pointing and witch hunting I'll make some suggestions to see if we want to make a set rule/policy;

author cant vote no matter who nominated the image
an author can vote/promote providing they didnt nominate
an Author can support promotion but only if the image is at CR
an author can oppose a nomination providing they werent the nominator

Personaly I dont think we need to have rules for every thing and every possibility, QI is meant to be a quick process that generally one opinion will always be sufficient. The nominator shouldnt be voting, if thats not the author I see no reason why they cant decline or withdraw but out of propriety they shouldnt be the one promoting, at CR though I have no issue with the author expressing an opinion either way providing they are open about being the author. Personally I wouldnt support or oppose but I would and do comment/respond to questions and opinions. If I was to chose one of these options then option 1 is what my current practise is but I'd also support option 4. Gnan garra 07:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowing the author to vote when someone else has nominated the image is slightly unfair as if it was the other way around there would be no problem - and the result would be the same. But if (as the author), we really do want an unbiased evaluation, it is appropriate for the author to stand aside for someone else to review it. I think we don't actually need a rule about it, simply because it is unusual for QI nominations to not be by the author, and if anyone is worried by such a promotion we already have the CR process. I really see no problem at all with the author voting in a CR discussion as it is no longer a single persons decision. Remember the whole process is meant to be fast and light weight, so very much on trust anyway - eg We trust that there is not some collusion between friends. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review/Voting Propriety

I have thought for a while that we should add a note discouraging people from always reviewing the same authors nominations. This is to both avoid the perception of collusion and to avoid the perception of harassment. I have not studied nominations to see if it is a real problem. Anyone care to comment? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I review several pictures in a row (when I used to???), I try to avoid opposing several images from the same user, especially if I don't know her or if she has few QI nominations that I know of. If I can, I pick another image from the same user that deserves a QI tag, to make the opposes more constructive. If the user has more experience here and we know each other, I believe that she will be aware that my opposes should not be taken as harassment. I take absolutely no precautions when I support, but I don't look at the nominator when I pick an image for reviewing, so I don't focus on a single source. I'd be quite surprised to be suspected of collusion, but I think it would be easier to handle than a suspicion of harassment, which (I think) is likely to generate more tension and hard feelings. --Eusebius (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible images?

Why are some images currently not visible on the voting page? Anyone knows how to fix that? -- H005 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geocoding as a requirement

Has there ever been a discussion to add proper geocoding as a requirement (only where relevant of course, similar to VI)? I find it annoying having to remind people of that, but to me it's part of the quality and value of a picture that it contains information about the location, just as the existing requirements categorized, have a meaningful title and description. If the requirement for a geocode would appear in the list I assume most nominators would geocode it automatically and noone would have to remind them individually. -- H005 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where relevant location info should be part of the description, I see no need to demand geocoding. If it is not currently a requirement, I am not sure what you are "reminding" people about currently :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make it any more complicated than it already is. --Calibas (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of geocoding doent dimish the quality of the work, unlike an inaccurate description or being uncategorised which are Wikimedia projects way of find images. Geocoding only services outside uses(google maps), geocoding is only really effective with a limited number of subjects(buildings, scenery) for most other subject its meaningless, with endangered subjects its totally inappropriate to give detailed locations. Gnan garra 05:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different view here. Actually, I find a geocode more important than description or categories, because for outdoor photos anyone can almost always derive the appropriate categories from the image and its geocode, but usually not vice versa.

I very often am looking for photos of a certain location, and there's no efficient way to find all images from a certain point on earth just by the description, and categories are often not detailed enough (e.g. covering only an entire town, but not a certain tower in its city wall, or a range of mountains, but not that particular summit). Here Google Earth/maps comes in handy and despite being not a genuine Wikimedia tool, it's nonetheless very useful for finding images in Commons.

Also, descriptions are often not detailed enough. E.g. they only say "in the xxx mountains" or "Grand canyon from the south rim", and their location can hardly be narrowed through plain text, as there are no streets or other named points of reference in these areas.

Whatever, even if you all oppose to making it a requirement, I will not promote pictures where location is relevant when there's no geocode, as for me its a more vital part high quality meta data than proper names, description, or categories. -- H005 (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are asking for geo-location of the subject of the picture, not the location of the camera. But it is the latter which is the standard for geo-coding around here. If the location of a QI is significant it should be mentioned in the description, if the description is not sufficient for you to determine the location of the subject, then demand a better description. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same subject, 7 QI's?

George Chernilevsk just nominated 7 images of Salaria pavo. IMO just one of them should be promoted. What do u think? —kallerna™ 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these seven images should not be uploaded at all, there's hardly any additional value in having seven over having just one, and it makes it harder to find really different images within the scope/subject if there are so many that all are basically the same. I've also not been happy about those four spider images - additional images only make sense if the contain additioanl information or are of a different style or quality.

But if they are uploaded, it's ok IMHO to promote them all for QI if they all meet the requirements. -- H005 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QI specifically allows multiple similar images. This is not a poor man's FP, it is just about improving the technical quality of our images. The arguments seem to be more about whether Commons should accept multiple similar images, that's a discussion for another forum (and unlikely to gain much traction) - the example of spider images is perhaps not the best to use as small animals like this can often only be properly identified by observing very minor differences - the more shots from slightly different perspectives the better. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Line thickness?

Why are the red, green, and blue borders of the nominations so thick? I used this concept here and decreased the thickness, and IMO gives more space. Perhaps it could be done here too. Zoo Fari 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and went bold since no one raised objections. Zoo Fari 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Photoworkshop Nyköping 2010

For those of you who are into photography I'd like to point out the 1st international Wikimedia Photoworkshop in Nyköping this year on easter. --Dschwen (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blurring licence plates

I'd like to blur licence plates on my street images to protect privacy of the car owners. Would a blurred plate somehow affect QI status of an image? --Leuo (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's well-done: no. -- H005

23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures?

Not sure if it is something about my sig but it is not working consistently on the QI page at present. I've found a number of times today that preview no longer showed anything other than the wiki code - has something changed? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably deactivated Javascript (purposely or accidentally). --Dschwen (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - checked that (& updated NoScript & restarted FF). Stopped working today only --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still an issue for me tho I realise it is "me" given others are editing ok :(. The sig does not work in FF nor in IE after reboot and clearing the cache/cookies etc. Any thoughts more than welcome? It is something to do with this page specifically as the sig "previews" on other pages fine. It also reviews outside the nomination template just fine --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe look here too? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - my preferences -> Editing -> uncheck "Experimental features" that are checked! Works for me. (apologies not written in fr) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective correction

Does anybody know a good freeware with which perspective correction can be proceeded? Does a simple small program exist or are such corrections only possible with Photoshop etc. - Celine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.97.135 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.shiftn.de/ available in german, english, french and spain. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or en:GIMP Gnan garra 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]