Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 → Archive 20

User:Ralf Roletschek, again, promoting poor quality material

User:Ralf Roletschek is currently on promoting some very poor, unsharp out-of-camera jpegs. These two already received QI: File:Mahane Yehuda Market sales 2.JPG, File:Convent of the Sisters of Zion.jpg. A couple of others promoted today, which I've detected and sent to CR.

This is repeated misuse of the QIC process. Only photos that are meeting COM:Image guidelines are to be promoted and it is well known that not all poor promotions can be detected; as there is simply too much of mass nominations, including own nominations by RalfR. Any discussion with him on this matter has been pretty useless for years.

Now, I propose a temporary user block of RalfR. - say, 3 days - he should finally realize that we're not willing to tolerate any misuse of the QI project that damages the project and its credibility also amongst newcomers. Please some opinion first. --A.Savin 16:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as he promoted my pictures, that have been declined by A. Savin, my statement: please change in the intro = the Guidelines - for nominators - the part thread "resolution" [1]: "should normally have at least 2 megapixels" for "hte images must be made from raw file". Is there any camera with 2 megapixles that makes raw files? A. Savin declined today two images with "Out-of-camera means not made from a raw file, not postprocessed" (Nomination Arch Ecce Homo in Via Dolorosa, Old City, Muslim Quarter, Jedrusalem -jkb- 13:39, 26 May 2016). Yep, my camera doesn't produce raw, although it has 20 megapxles. I would like to understand this policy here. For everybody it takes some time to upload the files and to nominate them. So change at least the intro. -jkb- (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see any difference between "must be made from a raw file" and "should have a level of quality comparable to a picture properly processed from a raw file"? Besides, I'd like opinions by fellow colleagues, not by someone came here just five days ago or so. --A.Savin 17:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, If somebody "damages the project and its credibility also amongst newcomers" so it is not Ralf. -jkb- (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for showing the colours. Some things never change, some people never change... --A.Savin 17:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. Savin, if you don't like me, if you have something against, or from any other reason, so I would appreciate you tell it to me directly, I guess we could find a slution. But by declinig my nominations and by sentences like "Thanks for showing the colours. Some things never change, some people never change" - that is not my level. Sorry. EOD. -jkb- (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you sincerely think that my recent declines have anything to do with something else than quality issues, then I guess no one can help you anymore. Thanks --A.Savin 18:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Die Kamera ist nicht die Beste aber sie hat ne hohe Auflösung. Würde man die Bilder auf 2 MP runterrechnen, wären sie gestochen scharf. --Ralf Roleček 18:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alex, I agree these images should not have been promoted, and in purpose to remove the label maybe they should be re-nominate, or by another method. However I do not think that a block is appropriate although your will to defend the label is respectable. As you said "some people never change", and a block will surely bring nothing more than conflict. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first picture you linked to is notably fuzzy, the second even worse. Is there a procedure for de-listing Quality Images? Ecce Homo in Dolorosa Jerusalem is also unacceptably fuzzy and I'm not impressed with Impression 3 Old City Jerusalem. I don't know enough about photo techniques to feel confident (yet, anyway) in passing judgment that something not really obviously good is of sufficient quality to pass the QI test, but my eyes can see these pictures aren't really high-quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the fact that RalfR is systematically misusing the QIC (which means both careless promotions, and careless nominations of own material) is much worse than when a couple of low-quality images have been promoted by mistake of, say, a less experienced user. It is useless to talk to RalfR about it, any attempt will be reverted. He is really a highly arrogant person, even compared to some "colleagues" from German wikipedia, and I also doubt that he is not aware of the fact that numerous of his promotions are just poor. He has been participating here for years now, perhaps even longer than me. Well, an other option: I could revise ALL of his noms+promotions from now on, but that would mean that I will not have time and endurance to review any other nominations anymore. Somewhat I'm afraid it's exactly what RalfR wants... --A.Savin 00:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Warum kloppt ihr euch hier eigentlich? Was ist denn passiert? Bin verwundert. To the questions about quality: AFAIR, there was a long standing official point that no contributor is to be excluded from the chance of getting his achievements promoted solely based upon his equipment, even if in reality the chance of getting a FP out of a consumer DSLR with kit lenses is only remote. For QI, the borderline may be drawn between min. APS-C sized sensors and smaller chips. I think that Alex basically ask if this more our less de facto rule shall be amended and made official. The contested pictures aren't as bad as some may hint, in full res, they only exhibit classical artifacts coming from technological limitations, a small pixel size on the sensor, I guess. So, what will we do? I think that there are or were cameras around 2MPx shooting in raw: the first generation of DSLR, maybe, or, from Canon, older G-series or simplier P&S devices combined with the modded firmware CHDK. But that would only be interesting from a technological and not practical viewpoint. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please no offtopic! Even with a compact 10 mpix camera, decent photos are possible: voilà. This is absolutely not the point. --A.Savin 01:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Decent? Yes, of course. Up to a promotion? Hardly. And a Nikon P7000 is not exactly "compact", bearing a comparatively large sensor (~1/3 of APS-C at the diagonal), so that's not the best example, especially when there is a whooping 20 MPx aka the double of the Nikon amount distributed on around 60% of its surface area. That collides with physical laws and takes us back to QI/FP = low pixel density hardly attainable in a compact or bridge camera. A numerical value of this technical feature could be used as an assessment threshold. But we'll need a collection of comments about how strict we'll be on technical artifacts stemming from overstretched sensors worked beyond sensible resolution limits. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, my personal standard is to downsample the image to 2 MP and promote if it is perfectly sharp edge-to-edge at that resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For QI, the borderline may be drawn between min. APS-C sized sensors and smaller chips – huh? Most of my QIs and FPs have been taken with (Micro) Four Thirds cameras, the sensor of which is a bit smaller than APS-C. The rest with an 1/1.7" camera even. I never used a bigger sensor since I started digital shooting. What to do now? Delist them all? Rubbish. You can take QIs and even FPs with a point-and-shoot camera (though it would be hard work using the cheapest one). Image quality, and even less image greatness, does not directly depend on its sensor size. --Kreuzschnabel 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that a block is warranted for having lower standards at QI. I think it's safe to say request declined on that one.
Regarding sharpness (oh here we go again), my view is that the image should be sharp as presented, and that generally downsampling should not be accepted. The 2MP rule is rather archaic now, I'd propose at least 6MP and grandfather in all current QI below that, but I'm not in charge (or even a participant nowadays). -mattbuck (Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are "[not] a participant", it is maybe better that you not comment here. Anything else is little children's crap. --A.Savin 18:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating more than 5 pictures a day

Just fyi I have counted 8 (in words: EIGHT) nominations by User:Ralf Roletschek as of May 26, and removed three of them now. --A.Savin 00:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, removing is ok. But this is not really a problem, it happens sometimes. --Hubertl 05:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Das war ein Versehen. Davon geht sicher die Welt unter. --Ralf Roleček 10:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Box

Hi, Just letting you know that i added today a newer design to the orange warning box. Looks like Cccefalon (CEphoto, Uwe Aranas) does not like it :-(, Since i am not a regular here i put it up here for review. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like it. The box is no more spanning 100% of the row and looks absolutely ugly on big screens. Also, this icon "Edit in Progress" does not match the purpose of the disclaimer. Third, the original color was choosen intentionally to attract attention. I am not against language sensitive boxes, but this new design is not an enhancement. The box was the result of a long lasting discussion here and accepted by all members. The more, it is a little bit disturbing, that people who are not involved in QIC just decide to change something here. You can make the box language sensitive, but please stick to the original style. Thank you, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: The old style is deprecated. You schould use container (div) for boxes, not wikitables (which are for tabular data) 1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am open for code variants. As long as the former style (100% row coverage, no icon, border:#abd5f5 background-color:#ffaa66) is met, I won't complain. There are for sure people, which have a core competence in coding. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coding the original style, Steinsplitter. It looks good now. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calling that revenge is highly ridiculous. You violated the licensing policy by uploading government work as own work with a creative commons license, not acceptable at all. Your behavior is explaining itself. Just to be clear: I don't care about the design, it was just a good faith edits. You misused it to create drama, i learned my lesson and will stay away from qic. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First lesson over all: While being in a discussion with someone, never add further war theatres. This will always have a taste. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
COM:AGF? The design change was done with best of knowledge and belief, you reverted it - it is fine for me - it is a wiki. Sorry that me edit has created so much drama :(. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind: I talked to you on your user page and asked politely to take the changes back because they do not look good. You brought the discussion here and asked for a review. Some minutes after my reply, I find six of my photos tagged with a deletion request. This all could have been handled in a dialogue; same as it started in the very beginning. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steinsplitter and me agreed to settle this. No more worries, all is ok now. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Ab)use of QIC by Photochallenge-Juries

I observed, that QIC is (ab)used by some regional Juries of the "Wiki love ..."-Challenges to mass-insert their nominations here, disregarding if the photo meets the Image Guidelines or not. While I am always willing to help photographers to enhance their work, I am not willing to assist different regional committees in mass-nominating the photos of their candidates. If such a photo is not meeting the image guidelines, I will from now just speedy decline with the sentence "Insufficient quality: Does not meet the image guidelines". If the photographer is capable to enhance the photo, he can re-nominate afterwards. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we know, unless this is Foundation policy to support chapters with grants, it is not really surprising. And I don´t believe, that this may be wrong. But on the other hand, it is also a chance, to get in contact to photographer to advice them if necessary, and to make it clear, that not really every tree in the fog and every sunset is per se Quality. Maybe for jurors without technical skills. But as Cccefalon wrote, we all should be clear but fair too. It´s a pity, that most of those pictures are not nominated by the photographers themselfs - so it´s mostly difficult or almost impossible to send the message to the right person - which is very often not the nominator. But on the other hand: A welcome to everyone in the QI-jungle! We will do our best! --Hubertl 07:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well explained, Hubertl. I also hope, that the nominated photographers take it serious, enhance their work and join QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, indeed "It is also a chance, to get in contact to photographer to advice them if necessary"... It is also necessary that newcomers are not systematically "discredited" as I could see above, while they were nominated. A minimum of pedagogy is required to a welcome to everyone in the QI-jungle! I know you do our best ! It's always a pleasure to observe your work in "challenges" with whom I learn a lot in the photo. Thank you, best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive "votes" by Spurzem

I think this is clear misuse of QIC by User:Spurzem, as "...good sharpness of the bird" is a pretty obvious lie. --A.Savin 15:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bird is sharp enough for me. May be that you don't agree. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is so clearly beyond all QIC standards that either one must be blind, or the vote is sincerely POINTy and abusive. Stop hoaxing. --A.Savin 16:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go as far to say that Spurzem is doing that on purpose. Probably he just cannot do better. I added my vote on CR which is the right place to defend the values of QIC . -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QIC same picture description

As QIC I understand a candidate which is not the photographer or the promoter but the picture itself. Am I wrong? I hate it as a reviewer if different pictures have the same description. What do you think? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was complained many times and the common sense always was, that within one set of nomination, the nomination text should be vary. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. A Person is a person is a person. I don't like to say more ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe keinen Grund, bei gleichen Motiven unterschiedliche Beschreibungen zu verwenden, im Gegenteil. --Ralf Roleček 07:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm NOT talking about the file description which is something different. I'm talking about the description on QIC. It has been asked already from many reviewers in order to make it easier to distinguish and find the different candidates independently of the content of the picture. I't just that --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is a nonsense is to nominate five times a portrait picture of the same person. This is not respectfull. As says Alchemist, but in a very different way and with an opposite conclusion: a person is a person is a person is a person is a person. Here is the nonsense. But of course, there is no rule against running indecently for QI--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to no-index candidate discussions at FPC

I have added a proposal to no-index the discussions at FPC, that would also logically make sense to extend to QIC. The reasons for this and discussion is at: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal to no-index featured picture discussions from search engines. KaisaL (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KaisaL: , QI doesn't have individual discussion pages for images. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It still has a main page that's indexed - although, granted, the main issue does seem less so here than at featured image candidates. It may be best in that sense to limit discussion to that section. KaisaL (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A big "Thank You" to all participants of the QI- and FP nomination contest!

Thank you and welcome!
Thank you and welcome!

Inbetween the last three month, many Commoners and Wikipedians have actively participated. The following list contains all 310 User, who nominated or assessed pictures actively. I think, the big amount of participants is a great success. I hope, we can do it even better in the future by encouraging even more friends to go with us and continue to create an open and friendly working environment.

Greetings from Vienna, --Hubertl 02:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-donald-, -jkb-, A.Savin, Acroterion, Adam Cuerden, Aeou‎, Aglaya72, Agnes Monkelbaan, Ailura, Albertus teolog, Alchemist-hp, Alex Florstein, Alexandar Vujadinovic, Alexander Hoernigk, Alexxx1979, Ali Zifan, AlixSaz, Anand2202, Andre Pimentel de Araujo, Andreas Bohnenstengel, Ant°AM‎, Archi38‎, Arielinson, ArildV‎, ArionEstar, Artemy Voikhansky, Atsme, Basotxerri, Be..anyone, BenH, Benreis, Benzol, Bep, Berthold Werner‎, Bgag, Bijay chaurasia, Billy69150, Bluerasberry, Böhringer, Bojars, Brateevsky‎, Bruce1ee, Bruce1ee, Buff, C messier, Caçador de Palavras, Captain-tucker, Carlos Natário, Carschten, Cayambe, Cccefalon, Cephas, CFynn‎, Chakazul, Chamarasca, Charlesjsharp, Christer T Johansson, Christian Ferrer, Christof46, Claus Obana, Clément Bardot‎, Cmelak770‎, Code, Colin, ComputerHotline, Crisco 1492, Daniel Case, Daniel VILLAFRUELA, Daniel-tbs, DarwIn, DeFacto, Dey.sandip, Diliff, Dirtsc, Discasto, Dmitry Ivanov, Domdomegg, DXR, DXR, Dyolf77‎, Ehrlich91, El Golli Mohamed, El Grafo, ElBute, Elisardojm, Ercé, Ermell, Ezarate, Fæ, Famberhorst, Federico Leva (BEIC), Felix Koenig, Florian Fuchs, Frank Schulenburg, Freddy2001, Fredlyfish4, Froszthamr, Geek3, George Chernilevsky, Ghost writ0r, Gnangarra, Gyrostat‎, Halavar‎, Hamerani, Harpagornis, Hendric Stattmann, Hockei, Hubertl‎, HVL, Hydro, Ibex73, Ikan Kekek, INeverCry‎, Isasza, IssamBarhoumi, IssamBarhoumi, Ivan2010, J budissin‎, J. Lunau, Jacek Halicki, Jacek79‎, Jakubhal‎, James970028, Jan Arkesteijn, Jan.Kamenicek, Japs 88, Je-str, Jebulon‎, Jiel, Jkadavoor, Jmh2o‎, Johann Jaritz‎, Josve05a, Juandev, JukoFF, JuliusR, Kabelleger, Kadellar‎, KaiBorgeest‎, Kasir, KDS4444, Kev22, King of Hearts, Kiril Simeonovski, Knöre, Kpalion, Krassotkin, Kreuzschnabel, Kritzolina, Kroton, Kruusamägi, KTC, LacoR, Laitche, Laveol, LC-de, Lepsyleon, Liberaler Humanist, Livioandronico2013‎, Llez, Llywelyn2000, Lmbuga, Londonjackbooks, Mænsard vokser, Malchen, Marianne Casamance, MarijaGrujovska, Marrovi, Martin Falbisoner, Martin Kraft, Martin Thoma, Martinvl, Masum-al-hasan, MathieuMD, Mathis73, Medium69, Meiræ, Menschenmaterial, Mfaiiazi, Michael Gäbler, Michielverbeek‎, Milseburg‎, MinoZig, Mk2010‎, Mö1997, Moheen Reeyad‎, Moroder, Msaynevirta, MSeses, Mummelgrummel, MZaplotnik, N 3 14 15 92 65, Nahid.rajbd, Niccolò Caranti (MUSE)‎, Nightflyer, Nikhilb239, Nireekshit, NMaia, Nordenfan, Nosachevd‎, Nyttend, Off-shell, OJJ, Olivier LPB, Ordercrazy, OTAVIO1981, Pablox, Palauenc05, Paris 16, Pedro J Pacheco, PereslavlFoto, PetarM‎, Peulle, Pikolas, Pine, Pleclown, Pline, Poco a poco, Podzemnik, Pokéfan95, Popo le Chien, Prosthetic Head‎, ProtoplasmaKid, Pudelek‎, Pugilist, QEDK, QuimGil, Rachid Hamatou, Rafesmar, Ralf Roletschek‎, Ram-Man‎, Rbrechko, Reda benkhadra, Reda Kerbouche, Rettinghaus, Rhododendrites, Rijinatwiki, Rodrigo Padula, Rodrigo.Argenton, Roumpf, Salicyna, Sameboat, Sami Mlouhi, Sandro Halank, SAplants, Satdeep Gill, Schnobby, SDKmac, SilviaCoimbra, SimcaCZE, SKas, SKopp, Slaunger, Smial, Sonya Partsevska, Soorajks3, Speravir, Spotter LEVT, Spurzem, Stepro, Sternrenette, Steschke‎, Stolbovsky, Stu's Images, Sturmjäger, Sujalajus, Sven Volkens, T.seppelt, Tanweer Morshed, Target360YT, TaronjaSatsuma, Taxiarchos228, The Photographer, Thennicke, Thesupermat, Thomasuebe, Till.niermann, Tobias "ToMar" Maier, Tomer T, Touzrimounir‎, Triton, Tsui, Tsungam‎, Tuxyso, Tyseria, Uoaei1, Usien, Verum, Villy Fink Isaksen, ViseMoD, Vivo, W.carter, Warko, Wieralee, Wikijunkie, Wishva de Silva, Wolf im Wald, WPPilot, Xenotron, Xicotencatl, Ximonic, XRay, Yann, Yigitaltay, Zcebeci‎, Ziegenberg, Zoldyick, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, बिप्लब आनन्द, নকীব সরকার,

Indeed, 310 people is a loooot of people, many more than I could think of. We are really growing :) Poco2 08:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Great diversity from around the world! Thanks Hubertl for making this list! Jee 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best practices for following up on criticisms

I'm pretty new to the QI process. A couple times I've had a nomination declined for a particular reason, but the user declining it hasn't responded to a follow-up question about fixing the problem. Then when the nomination is archived, the only options are to forget about it or renominate. As I lack experience, I'm reluctant to do the latter as I don't want to waste people's time. I would like to know how to improve, though, and curious about best practices.

At the moment, there is one image on the candidates page marked as declined with a question from me. I can hardly complain, as it was just declined yesterday :) But I'd like to avoid the scenario of it being archived with me still uncertain about whether it's as fixable as it seems to me. What's the best way to go without being annoying? :) (I'm not actually looking for comments on this particular image, which is why I'm not linking to it from here) — Rhododendrites talk |  14:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites, if you disagree with the decline (or a promotion), you can set the image to discussion (Consensual Review), by changing /Decline| (or /Promotion|) to /Discussion| . --C messier (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@C messier: Thanks. I wouldn't have thought it was appropriate for the nominator to do so, since he/she could be presumed to think the image good enough. I'm also concerned about doing so on the basis of questions rather than disagreement. The current decline was on the basis of CA in part of the image, and I just wanted to clarify whether cropping it would help, or if another similar image I've uploaded would be worth nominating. So I'm not quite disputing that it should be declined -- I'd just like to have more information, and to gain insight into the rationale to know if it would be foolish to try the other. It's been archived now, though. I appreciate that Commons could use more volunteers doing work like evaluating QIs, but I also think it makes sense to be willing to answer good faith follow-up questions if you're willing to review in the first place. Meh :/ — Rhododendrites talk |  13:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved nomination archived?

Earlier today QICbot archived File:Suicide_chess_1._d3_forced_loss.gif, a nomination from 6/27 which had been neither promoted nor declined. Why would this be? It did have a comment by Hubertl (and a response by me). If it were to be moved, wouldn't it go to consensual review? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: After ten days of almost no response except my complaint, the bot has archived this nomination. Categorized now as an unassassed QI-Nomination. I think, this is ok. How shall we handle such situations different, in your opinion? --Hubertl 07:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: Oh I see. I thought that any nomination which wasn't resolved after some point was moved down to consensual discussion. Are people discouraged from switching their own nominations to discuss? Is there a problem with renominating something that was archived without being resolved (similar to on enwiki where an AfD may be closed as "no consensus (no prejudice against speedy renomination)" if not enough opinions were expressed after a couple relistings)? — Rhododendrites talk |  13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: No, only pictures, which are in struggle. But there was no struggle. Beeing not assessed is not a struggle at all. Except for the nominator, of course. Usualy, if I would have declined your picture and you or someone else may not agree, so this image will set to discuss and will go the next day to CR. If you won´t find a consens, after 8 day it will be closed without. The same procedure, just another place. --Hubertl 14:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hubertl: Ok, so if I understand correctly, (a) one should not change to Discuss unless there is already a Promote/Decline, and (b) it is ok to renominate if archived without assessment? Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ad a) yes, ad b) yes. Have fun. --Hubertl 14:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your help :) — Rhododendrites talk |  14:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! --Hubertl 14:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of QIC

Some users - though experienced with the purpose and rules of QIC - again use QIC for mass-nominating of contest photos or own photos without contributing to any review. I pinged three of the users User:Nightflyer, User:Atamari and User:Ата and hope, that they understand my signal. If not, I consider to decline he photos for reason of abusing QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I will try to examine photos better before nominating them. Though — and this is the reason why I do not and will not contribute to reviews — I have no relevant expertise for promoting images. --Ата (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just look around for photos where you have no doubts. If you are unsure, skip it and look for another. There are regulars with a high likelyhood that there are no basic issues. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: Du kennst diese Seite? Ich hab mir das nicht ausgedacht. Wenn ich Fotos eintrage, dann nur, damit WLE zumindest in diesem Jahr ein messbares Erfolgserlebnis hat. Wenn wir es nicht machen, macht es keiner. Neulinge kennen QI mit Sicherheit nicht. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ich schaue mir jedes Bild vorher an, ungesehen stelle ich kein Bild in den Prozess hinein. Nur leider gibt WMDE/WMF diese Vorgaben. Die meisten Fotografen kennen die Einrichtung von QI überhaupt nicht. --Atamari (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Der Punkt ist nicht, dass Photos von Neulingen auf QIC vorgestellt werden. Das Problem ist, dass diejenigen, die diese Photos nach QIC bringen offensichtlich denken, dass es sich hierbei um eine Serviceveranstaltung handelt. Um es nochmal klar zu sagen: Wenn Du oder sonst jemand 5 Bilder nominiert, dann ist es nicht mehr als fair und kollegial fünf vernünftige Reviews bei anderen Nominierungen zu hinterlassen. Das Ganze ist Dir aber eigentlich nicht neu, oder? Ich habe meine Meinung hierzu auch an die einschlägigen Nominierer aus Brasilien, Tunesien und anderen Staaten gerichtet. Dass dann immer wieder der allerletzte Pixelmüll hier platziert wird, toppt die Sache nur noch. Wenn die Wettbewerbsbilder hier nur noch ohne Gegenleistung abgeladen werden, werde ich zumindest von meiner Seite durchgreifen und die Bilder pauschal ablehnen. Gruss, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cccefalon: Teilst du deine Meinung (warum QI keine Erfolgskriterium für Fotowettbewerbe sein darf) bitte genauso vehement auch der WMF mit? Geht am Besten über Listen oder die Disk der aktuellen "Geschäftsführerin" --PigeonIP (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Auch Du hast den Sinn und den Hintergrund dieses Threads offensichtlich nicht verstanden. Es geht mir nicht um WLE, WMF, BBQ oder sonstwas sondern um die einfache Regel: Wer mehr als gelegentlich oder gleich die maximale Tagesanzahl an Bildern nominiert und sich nicht als absoluter QIC-Assi outen will, der hat sich gefälligst auch an den Reviews zu beteiligen. Die Geschäftsführerin darf sich gerne hier am thread beteiligen. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ich persönlich mache da eine Ausnahme bei gelegentlich vorbeischneienden Ftografen, die mir gesagt haben, daß sie sich eine Beurteilung nicht zutrauen. Das kann man akzeptieren. --Ralf Roleček 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Völlig richtig. Auf diese Klientel ziele ich nicht ab. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist wenig zielführend, einfach die XX erstplazierten Bilder zu nomnieren. Etwas Vorauswahl darf schon sein. Die Kriterien bei Wettbewerben sind nicht mit QIC identisch. --Ralf Roleček 11:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
QIC ist eine kollaborative Veranstaltung, die sehr darauf angewiesen ist, daß Bilder - völlig unabhängig davon, ob sie den teils durchaus kontrovers diskutierten Kriterien entsprechen oder nicht -´nicht einfach abgekippt werden, sondern daß jeder, der Bilder vorschlägt, sich auch an den Bewertungen beteiligt. Die dafür nötige Expertise hat man nach ein paar Nasenstübern scnell erarbeitet, und, wie Uwe ganz richtig angemerkt hat: Man kann sich anfangs auf unproblematische, eindeutige Fälle beschränken.
Es ist natürlich äußerst unschön, daß jetzt (unbezahlte) WLE-Engagierte den Rüffel dafür kassieren, daß die Zahlenfetischisten bei WMF Blödsinnsvorgaben gemacht haben. Ich für mein Teil würde das Einstellen der WLE-Ergebnisse exakt den Hochladern überlassen - und wenn dann eben keine x% "tolle Bilder mit Bapperln dran" herauskommen, dann hat WMF den Wettbewerb halt falsch konstruiert oder sieht ein, daß solche Zahlenvorgaben Unfug sind. Denn die implizieren "Arbeitsaufträge" an Unbezahlte, an Freiwillige, die eventuell weder die Lust noch die Zeit haben, WMF-Bedürfnisse zu befriedigen. -- Smial (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WMF konstruiert nicht den Wettbewerb, sondern bezahlt ihn. Und sie bezahlen nun einmal zunehmend nur noch Aktionen mit messbaren Ergebnissen. Wir können jetzt wieder darauf zurückkommen, dass wir alles in Wikipedia und Commons ohne Geld machen sollten, aber dann finden solche Wettbewerbe eben nicht mehr statt, das kann es auch nicht sein. Wie genau würdest Du denn beurteilen, ob WLE funktioniert? Die nackte Anzahl an hochgeladenen Bildern, egal wie grottig, ist auch keine Lösung. --Ailura (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Der beste Erfolgsindikator ist m.E. die Verwendung der Bilder im ANR. Wenn die Bilder dort gebraucht werden, gab es sie entweder vorher noch gar nicht oder sie sind inhaltlich oder qualitativ besser als die vorher dort verwendeten. Bewertungen wie QI oder FP können dem Fotografen helfen, Schwachstellen zu finden, sich selber zu verbessern (was zumindest mein Ansatz ist) und sich eine Bestätigung für die Qualität der Fotos zu holen. Aber der Grundsatz von dem ganzen <ironie>WP-Wahnsinn</ironie> hier war doch, Dinge zu dokumentieren, also Bilder von Sachen zu machen, die bisher noch nicht bebildert waren. Gruß --Dirtsc (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ist auch meine Lieblings-metric. Das heißt aber, Du lehnst WLE oder andere Fotowettbewerbe grundsätzlich ab, wenn viele der Objekte gar keine Artikel haben? --Ailura (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh nein! Man kann auch erst dokumentieren und dann schreiben (oder hoffen, dass andere schreiben). Ich mache beides und häufig stehen die Fotos am Anfang, danach kommt der Artikel. Von daher sollte man vielleicht eher auf so etwas wie "neue Kategorien in Commons" abstellen. Denn wenn ich ein Objekt oder Gebiet fotografisch etwas umfangreicher dokumentiere, sollte ich auch gleich eine passende Kategorie anlegen. Insgesamt ist aber sehr schwierig, den "Erfolg" von Wettbewerben wie WLE oder WLM auf Zeiträumen von wenigen Monaten zu messen. --Dirtsc (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann @Cccefalon: nur zustimmen und billige ausdrücklich auch die entsprechenden Maßnahmen wenn jemand das Prinzip hier grundsätzlich ignoriert. Kaum ein anderes System auf Commons lebt mehr vom Geben-und-Nehmen-Prinzip. Wer das systematisch missachtet, der kann nicht auf Verständnis hoffen. Leider missverstehen hier einige das Prinzip und glauben, sie seien grandiosere Fotografen wenn sie noch weitere 1000 QI auf ihrem Zähler stehen haben. Als ich hier noch rege aktiv war, war ich lange Zeit auch der einzige, der die gewählten Bilder in die entsprechenden Kategorien sortiert hat. Etliche Aufrufe, mich zu unterstützen, schlugen fehl.

Allerdings bin ich auch selbst schuld. Damals, als noch Pudelek irgendwas um die 500 QI's hatte nominierte ich Bilder und empfand Freude daran, ihn zu überholen. Allerdings kann ich aus eigener Erfahrung sagen: es tut richtig gut, QI auch mal eine ganze Weile den Rücken zu kehren. Man hat viel Zeit für andere tolle Dinge, auch fotografische ;-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ein finnischer Benutzer nominiert fast ausschließlich fremde Fotos und stimmt nicht selbst ab, zumindest empfinde ich es so, ich kontrolliere es nicht. Das finde ich aber ok, da man deutlich sieht, daß er nicht auf Masse macht sondern ausßergewöhnliche Fotos ins Rennen schickt, die ihm auffallen.
QI lebt auch davon, daß wir alle davon lernen. Fotos, die man selbst als toll empfindet, fallen zu Recht durch, weil Fremde das objektiv anders sehen. man lernt, die Scheuklappen etwas abzulegen. Man lernt, seine eigenen Fotos neutraler zu beurteilen. --Ralf Roleček 19:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unemployed people seeking job as QIC-Reviewer
Wenn ich gefördert werde, habe ich eigentlich genügend Arbeit, die Bilder zu machen, nachzubearbeiten, zu beschriften, hochzuladen und einzubinden. Dann sollte ich noch das hier über mich ergehen lassen (wofür mir meine Nerven eigentlich zu schade sind), dann habe ich aber jedenfalls keine Kapazitäten mehr, mich noch mit fremden Bildern zu beschäftigen. Ich habe nebenbei auch noch einen Job. --Ailura (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Klar, die ganzen regulars hier sind allesamt Arbeitslose und Rumstreuner, die mit der Bewertung der Bilder ihre Zeit totschlagen. Geht's noch? Wer genau ist denn hier, der nicht selber eine Menge Arbeit reinsteckt, um Bilder zu machen, nachzubearbeiten, zu beschriften, hochzuladen und einzubinden? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, das war nicht gegen hiesigen die Regulars gerichtet sondern gegen Leute, die erwarten, dass ich mich hier beteiligen muss. --Ailura (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Es sind selbstgegebene Regeln hier auf QIC. Niemand wird gezwungen, hier mitzuarbeiten. Die Leute, die hier ihre Freizeit verbraten, sind aber auch keine Dienstleister, die auf Zuruf "mal eben" 500 oder mehr Bilder eines Wettbewerbs zusätzlich verarbeiten. Was glaubst du, ist der Grund, weshalb irgendwann diese Fünf-Bilder-Regel eingeführt wurde? Sicherlich nicht, weil unter den Regulars auf dieser Seite akute Langeweile herrschte.
Ich sehe das so, daß der Geldgeber von den Leuten, die Projekte verantworten, Ergebnisse sehen wollen. Das ist soweit auch völlig in Ordnung und gerechtfertigt. Die wollen aber gern abzählbare Ergebnisse haben, die man schön in Statistiken und Powerpoints darstellen kann. Also überlegt sich die Projektleitung, wie man irgendwas Abzählbares zustande bringt. Ich vermute, daß in diesem Fall die Diskussion irgendwo in Ukrainischer Sprache stattfand und als Ziel halt 2015 u.a. Mindesterfolge bei FP, QI und VP festgelegt wurden. Die wurden zwar nicht erreicht (VP=0, FP=0, QI rund 550), aber anscheinend unbesehen (und vermutlich erneut in ukrainischer Sprache diskutiert) für 2016 übernommen. Und nun haben die Maschinisten, die guten Willens diese Vorgaben irgendwie umsetzen wollen, den Streß mit denen, die die Kohlen für den Dampfer schaufeln, während auf der Brücke sehnsüchtig auf die Metrics gewartet wird, die man in der Kapitänslounge präsentieren kann.
Ich persönlich halte alle bisher an dieser Diskussion Beteiligten für guten Willens und glaube, daß wir durch einen Konstruktionsfehler bei diesem Versuch der Erfolgsmessung in diese blöde Situation gedrängt wurden. -- Smial (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ich wollte oben nur erzählen, warum ich persönlich nicht bewerte (und wenig nominiere). Das ändert aber an dem Dilemma, dass Fotoprojekte irgendwelche Ziele haben sollten, und dass das aber nicht ungefragt anderen Leuten unnötige Arbeit aufhalsen sollte, nichts. --Ailura (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Degradation of QIC

I'm noticing this for a few days; but had decided to keep silent until I saw strong evidences. Now Hubertl started attacking my nominations stating "Sorry, I don´t have time to assess you nominated images. As long as you don´t do it with those of your collegues, even when it is not your cup of tea. (your words!)". I had politely replied to his early request "Please assess some other nominations too!" as "See history. But most organism photos are quickly get reviewed before I get a chance. Other subjects are not my cup of tea." But he replied, "With all due respect, this is a very lame excuse. But I don´t care really, because I won´t invest time to assess your picture, as long as you don´t do that with others." See; I had reviewed the only two available organism photos when I nominated earlier ([2], [3]).

I've no problem if people prefer the "like for like" game in social media here too; but it is not going to bring anything good for Commons. The benefit for this is to decorate our user page "Wow! I've 1K quality images!". I've no problem if people decline my works or ignore. But don't expect me to promote your work if you promote mine. I had long tired by that type of appreciations.

If Hubertl or anyone else thinks I'm neglecting their works due to disrespect, it is not true. I appreciate all types of photos under COM:TOL; but nothing else. I'm slowly coping up; but I've my personal issues. As you know, I'm just relocated after a huge loss and my Internet is still not stable. A good review need good bandwidth and the photo need to be downloaded. The photo one I reviewed above is above 40MP! Jee 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What will you say with that? You won´t assess any other images except those from the Tree-of-Life-Project? It is not a bad idea, IMO, to do so. But were are the other participants of TOL? Just above, there is a long discussion about the same issue we both are talking about. The result is: If you nominate a picture, expecting a serious review, you have to do the same with the work of others. So simple, so easy. I have nothing to add. You are experienced enough to assess pictures, even when they are not from insects. --Hubertl 14:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand what you are trying to say: "Don't just nominate and runaway". But nominate X images and quickly review (most are blind promotions is what I see) that much images, preferably who review (promote) your image is just a Pokémon game. I had here for a longtime; knew well what is going on. Not interested in that politics, much. But in my available time, I'm more than happy to help others; identify unknown subjects, add/create categories, and anything related to my interests. I had reviewed a lot of images even while I'm not active in photography, both in QIC and FPC. Had maintained the FPC for more than one year together with other colleagues here. So please don't measure me from a statistics of one week or month.
Personally I prefer thorough reviews or declines than quick promotions from my friends. Otherwise I can quickly promote 3-5 noms and nominate 3 photos to join this game. Honestly I too may played it in my early days. But not now. Jee 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can´t see if there are mostly just blind promotions. This statement is absolute unacceptable! And, it is not at all a game. I´m not questioning your work here in Commons, we are just talking about the nomination and promoting process for QI. Your reply is just an excoriation of all the people here. So, then I ask you: Why do you want to be promoted from someone, you are completely disrespectful with? Disrespectful of course only with QI, not while asking for help during a kickstarter campaign! --Hubertl 15:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Your reply is just an excoriation of all the people here." No; I know many people here reviewing (neutrally) without expecting any reward. I too had did it. Will continue, if any biology related works are pending. And remember, QIC prefers review old noms first; not the top ones immediately after the nomination. What I see now is friends jump-in when someone add new noms. Jee 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite unpleasant to discuss with you, you refuse to accept, what the reason and the cause of my intervention is. And you refuse any offer. --Hubertl 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering: if you don't have time to review his noms, why don't you just let it be. It is unkind and unnecessary to write this comment at each of his pending nominations. (As we all know fronm experience, nominations with comments are usually no longer reviewed by someone else, so placing such comments without an intention to review might be seen as kind of sabotage.) --A.Savin 17:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment After read this and also the discussion above with google translate, I agree with A.Savin, the best thing to do if you think a user abuses by nominating two much pictures without enough review in response, is to ignore its nominations in the QI page. Ok to open discussion here to complain. But systematic decline or systematic comment unrelated to the review is not the best way forward. However I can understand this kind of disagreement, this can be frustrating spend the time reviewing while you feel some other users nominates without spend the time reviewing. But QI candidates page is for nomination/review, and talk pages are to discuss this kind of problem. Please do not do justice or police in the candidate page. Without stop you to say your opinion, that you're right or wrong, please some mastery if you like the QI project. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say I will not review other's works; I only said my expertise is limited to a particular topic and there is not much (or little) pending nominations in that topic. I'm not seeing many longtime players now; may be an off-season in their countries. Hubertl is arguing why I can't review other topics. There may be people having a wider range; but not for me. And it is my personal choice. Why people can't respect it?
  • Does there many pending nominations in QIC? I didn't see many. Most of the activity there is when I sleeps due the timezone difference. There is very little activity there when I'm active.
  • And finally, there may be a language problem that affected us. It was brief comment by him and my reply was too brief. If so, my apologies. I'm not in a mood to argue with any. Will try to stay away until fully recovered. Thanks all. Jee 04:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Quality images of insects

I just created a few new subcategories for Category:Quality images of insects and moved relevant files into them. So please remember to use them for future promotions! Jee 09:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist QI

Hey guys, as most of us now, there is no regulated way to do a delist of QI images, however as we just need one dude to approve, sometimes very doubtful images passes (and we don't see) or as the times goes by, some images photographed in past starts to not be as good as some now. How can we proceed to re-discuss the QI status of some pictures? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QIBot

It seems the bot skipped a lot of files from tagging on August 31 2016. Jee 04:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to post in disagreement

Hi, everyone. I tried within the last 1-2 weeks to post in disagreement with a Support vote, and since I couldn't figure out how to make an Oppose vote show, the photo was promoted on a 1-1 vote, presumably by the bot. I would again like to disagree with a Support vote, but I don't know the mechanics of how to post the disagreement and Oppose vote (except in Consensual Review, but this isn't in Consensual Review). Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In QIC, the bot only check whether the word "Nomination" is changed to "Promotion", "Decline" or "Discuss". If one person choose "Promotion" and you disagree with it, just change it to "Discuss" and add your rational. The bot will move it to CR on next run. My understanding is that the bot will not read {{Support}} or {{Oppose}} there. Jee 03:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC) BTW, you'll get a "click here to activate QIVoter helper!" red link while clicking edit source on any date. I don't know whether it is a default to everybody. Try enabling "Zoom viewer" in preference too which is easier for quick reviews. Jee 03:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are QIC standards high enough?

In theory, shouldn't any QI be technically good enough for its quality not to be an issue at COM:FPC? Operating on the theory that this is the case, I did due diligence by nominating this photograph for QI. It was promoted. But look what happened what I tried to nominate it for FP. It doesn't disturb me for the composition of a QI to be found wanting at FPC, nor for it to be found to lack "wow"; let's face it: most QIs, while technically competent, are not among the creme de la creme of photographs, and that's not what "Quality" means, in any case. But my feeling is, if the quality of a photo at full size is "dire" and "looks over-processed, soft and blown out in many places", that seems to me to be a failure of QIC judging.

Would anyone like to make the argument that the technical standards at QIC should be lower than at FPC? That doesn't seem to be what the guidelines say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the log I see that Code promoted this at QI and I have no doubt he normally has a critical eye. QI is generally just one person's opinion and every image is not subject to group review. It takes a lot for someone to look at a tiny thumbnail, taken by a respected photographer, already supported by a respected reviewer, and spend the time to check for themselves. To the extent that QI determines images that are good enough quality to be generally useful, then I don't worry too much if the standard is lower than FP. Certainly it seems mainly focused on technical issues with exposure and focus, and ensuring the composition lacks obvious flaws. I don't see any evidence of looking for good light at QI (e.g. dull image taken on dull day == ok), or a composition that is actually interesting rather than just without serious flaw. Sometimes great images are rejected at QI for noise or CA.
Specifically, this image has sufficient technical defects that my immediate reaction was that it had been taken by a mobile phone. But the EXIF claimed a D800E. The left side has very strong sharpening artifacts -- halos round high-contrast edges. The right side is posterised/blown. There's a lack of texture to the image indicative of too much noise reduction. Why does it have these defects and why only 10MP when neither the camera settings nor the camera should indicate a failing? -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that while I am citing this specific example, I've been wondering lately in general whether we are tolerating too much unsharpness, for example, in QIC. Look at some of the discussions currently going on at Consensual Review. I find the idea of downsampling photos to 2 MP to check whether they look OK at that size particularly objectionable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, downsizing is a huge and never-ending argument in itself. But I'm surprised anyone is defending 2MP in 2016. There are arguments for 5 or 6MP for a standard-ratio image, as that's whats needed to print a high quality A4 image. Anything less and you are supporting an "OK for a Wikipedia thumbnail" version of QI, but I can't see any point in that. I agree there is an inconsistency with some people being dogmatic about "no downsizing" while at the same time pixel-peeping at 100%. One can't really do both, as we don't all own Zeiss Otus lenses or shoot in perfect light. I don't think it's ever really been established what QI is for, so everyone has their own idea. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is: We can require 100% sharpness at 2 MP, 4 MP, 6 MP, whatever. But a high-resolution image that wouldn't pass at native resolution must not be allowed to pass if downsampled to minimum resolution (the only exception is when the 100% is very unsharp throughout, not just the edges, in which case downsampling is actually an improvement and doesn't throw away any significant amount of data). Now it wouldn't be fair to fail a D7200 image when a D40 image taken with the same lens would pass, so that's why I look for 100% sharpness at minimum resolution when unsure of whether a high-resolution image is sharp enough. And that minimum resolution happens to be 2 MP right now. I'd support an increase 4 or 5 MP, with some exceptions for wildlife or other difficult subjects. I think 6 MP is too high, because there are still many fine cameras around which are exactly 6 MP and any cropping/perspective correction will put it below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts I think you are confusing a fairly hard threshold of 2MP below which an image would have to be exceptional/difficult to pass, with a minimum desirable for the project in general. If you're happy with 5MP being such a desirable minimum, then review at that, at 5MP, for sharpness/noise. But 2MP is so small right now, it doesn't even fill a TV screen. Are there really many people using cameras less than 12MP these days, other than on some mobile phones, which would be rare to pass QI anyway. The Nikon D40 is 10 years old, and I suspect there aren't many working models by now. I would have thought the percentage of < 12MP cameras being used for QI is < 1%. The problem with raising the minimum is there are always some who argue it is ok for Wikipedia, or that telephoto bird photos need it. But for landscapes, etc, there really isn't any excuse. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So do we reject all 2 MP easy-to-take landscapes no matter what? If you upsample it to 5 MP there's no way it's going to look good even if it was perfect at 2 MP. I'm fine with that as long as we're consistent; I just don't want photos at different resolutions to be judged unfairly when absolute resolution is what really matters. As for the D40 - it's not just old DSLRs. I personally think compacts (at least the more advanced ones) should have a chance at passing QI, and despite what it may say on the label (12 MP, 16 MP, or even higher) the real resolution is not going to be much more than 5-6 MP due to diffraction and other lens limitations when your sensor size is only 1/1.7". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did promote this picture. It might be true that this decision was wrong and I apologize for that. However I still believe that - besides the oversharpening issue - the picture still isn't that bad and probably deserves the QI badge according to our usual standards. I have seen much worse pictures getting promoted here. The question whether the standards are too high or too low here is a neverending story. There will always be decisions somebody will complain about. --Code (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image maybe slightly oversharpened, but I cannot see other severe problems. Absolutely ok for QI. The main problem at QIC is not too low or too high standards, but the interpretation of the existing standards by different users. --Smial (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Code and Smial. It´s ok for QI. --Hubertl 18:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Code, no need to apologize, and I'm sorry that it appears that I'm singling you out. I think this is a useful broader discussion, though maybe I didn't frame it in the best way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But based on the responses in this subthread, I guess the unofficial standard for quality is actually less demanding at QIC than at FPC. Does everyone think that's OK, even though it seems to deviate from the official guidelines? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Practically it is so because most QI review is by one reviewer and only a majority of support is needed even in CR. In FPC, it needs a minimum of seven supports and with a 1:2 majority. Jee 08:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Should the guidelines be changed to reflect this, or should we leave them as is and just maintain current practices? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are "die-hard" fans for each project (FP/QI/VI) and they will not agree their is inferior to others. So better leave it as they are. ;) Jee 10:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this is QI, but I agree not FP quality - there are a number of defects, including the oversharpening and tilt. But, good enough for QI. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, FPC is not just QIC + wow. For some subjects there is an intermediate level which is enough for QIC but not for FPC. It is entirely reasonable to turn down a sharp 10 MP panorama of a landscape in Germany at FPC for being too low-res, but it would have to pass at QIC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_15&oldid=708342583"