Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Categorised in Quality images and Unassessed QI candidates

Correct me if I'm wrong.

• If an image is nominated as QI candidate and nobody approves or declines it, it is sorted in category Unassessed QI candidates by a bot when the image is removed from the candidates list
• You are allowed to nominate the image again for QI
• When the second time the image is approved, it is sorted in category Quality images

Shouldn't category Unassessed QI candidates be removed when the image passes the second time? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Normally it should; but the QICbot doesn't, nobody cares, and the category is irrelevant anyway. --A.Savin 19:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not totally irrelevant but luckily fixable with PetScan and QuickCategories. --MB-one (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know why and for whom this category is useful? --Smial (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I use the category to find images, that haven't been assessed during the last nomination period. --MB-one (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Und da findest du etwas in den derzeit 14688 Einträgen, die alphabetisch sortiert sind? --Smial (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Image disappeared

Where has File:Narphu Village, Mustang.jpg gone? It's still listed and promoted at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_June_24_2019 -- Smial (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. --A.Savin 16:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

ARGL... & thx. --Smial (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

artistically designed photos

We currently have an oppose on File:Hafezieh_001.jpg with stated reason "I do not think that QI is the right platform for artistically designed photos". Is this a valid reason for an oppose? Charles (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree with that vote and have commented such. But I note that it is a review by Steindy and I thought AN/U had agreed you both take a break from each other for a while. So please, concentrate on other nominations for now. -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should stick to just "documentary" photographs, but of course if one is submitting an "artistic" photograph the artistry is an extra dimension to quality and therefore open to criticism. In the current case, I couldn't support that image but don't want to pile on. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

QIC nominator problem

I don't see the green bar to autonominate images, only the red Review bar. I've de- and re- installed the gadget in preferences but no luck. Any ideas? Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Still happening. Is anyone else seeing this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen Mae Hashutsujo

This night, a new user edited the candidate list adding obviously no serious QI candidates and changing the status of a lot of images unfounded to discuss – in the first 20 minutes after creating an account. Looks like vandalism to me, but at least like not expedient contributions. That's the reason why I reverted it. Because I revoked a lot of votes, I wanted to let you know. Maybe someone disagrees? But in my opinion it's pretty clear... --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 01:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

At least block me dude! Are you really serious ? I deserve to be indefinitely blocked ;) Be a good user and block me. Thanks for protecting this page.-- Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen Mae Hashutsujo (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I will not edit anymore, your generosity changed by evil thoughts. --Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen Mae Hashutsujo (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Blocked. --A.Savin 12:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Problems nominating QIs

I have Qinominator enabled. When I click on the nominate button, this happens:

Great banded grayling (Brintesia circe), Bükk National Park, HungaryNOTE: This image is a focus stacked image consisting of multiple images that were merged using software. As a result, this image underwent digital manipulation which may have included blending, blurring, cloning, and colour and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different than reality at the points where the images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions.I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:

Then when I go to QIC and click on the green tab, nothing happens. Anyone got an answer please? Charles (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The "oldfashioned" nominate button works normal. --Smial (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Which button do you mean, please Smial? At the top on my image pages there's a button Nominate this image for QI. This doesn't work. Charles (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I just used the same button and everything worked as usual. --Smial (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=364589579

Yes, I saw that, thanks. Weird. I wonder if anyone else knows what's happening. Charles (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I had no problems with the image on the Nomination side. I clicked on "Nominate this image for QI" (not the logo) and the added the image to the candidate list with the green box above the edit window. The ultra long description seems to be the fault of the QI nomination tool that automatically creates the text. However, I get a box where I can alter the text to whatever think fits best. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• And see my other problem in discussion 5 above. There has been no resolution to the problem that Nominate this image for QI on an image page doesn't work. Charles (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It worked for me the other day. Are you thinking that if you press that button it nominates straight away? It doesn't. It remembers which images you have "nominated" and then when you open up the candidate list, you get a new button to insert your nominations. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• No Colin, when I go to the day's QI page, the green bar appears as it always has done. I click it and nothing happens. It packed up a couple of months ago. Charles (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My topic is about the border you see on the candidate list. Your problem seems to be an unrelated technical one. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry D-Kuru, Charles posted here because his section above was being ignored. I used the QI helper last night and it worked. Have you installed any other gadgets or added any javascript to your special pages? Have you tried another browser? -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't work on Firefox either, Colin. I have various scripts on my user page. Charles (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I moved this conversation since it is not part of the other topic --D-Kuru (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Promotion notifications for nominators

Hello! Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. I've no expert photographer but I've recently started nominating images taken by others for QI status. Lately I've been nominating images taken by User:Daderot, but I have to watchlist their talk page so I can see which images have been promoted, and I've been copying over the QI bot notifications to my own talk page for future reference. I'm not seeking credit, but I do like tracking which of my nominations were successful.

I think it would be helpful if nominators were also notified of promoted images, especially if this is something that's easy to program the bot to do. If too complicated, I understand, but I think recognizing both photographers and nominating would be a good thing. Thoughts? Concerns?

-Another Believer (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't you get notified (bell icon) when your username is used on a talk page? Or is that just for images you have promoted?

I just checked, I got notified when an image got promoted to QI that was nominated by me.

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, well I have not received any notifications when messages were posted on User:Daderot's talk page. I'm nominated quite a few images by them, but never got pinged. Either way, I still wonder if editors like the idea of the bot placing talk page messages for nominators, in addition to photographers. -Another Believer (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess I thought about this the wrong way: The nominator get's the note that the image was approved. The author/uploader does not get any message as far as I can see. however, I support the idea for a feature where the original author gets a note. --D-Kuru (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedian requirement

Why is there a requirement that the picture must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status? Kaldari (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The QI process was introduced to encourage Wikipedians to create technically usable images that meet a certain minimum standard. In order to increase the proportion of really presentable photos as quickly as possible, the process was deliberately designed to be very simple, so that not every single picture has to be discussed extensively, possibly for weeks. QI is therefore not a kind of Second Class FP, but a project aimed exclusively at photographing Wikipedians to raise the overall quality level of Wikipedia illustrations. With QI we can obviously not motivate photographers of imported images. --Smial (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If an agency wants to bypass that restriction, all they would have to do is to open up an account. So eg. the US navy could open an account on Commons and then all images taken by US navy personell could become QIs --D-Kuru (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How to? Most images of the US Navy have listed the photographer by name. There are hundreds of photographers. All with the same account? I would reject such candidates in general, because such an action would be against the spirit of QI. --Smial (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

What to do about images that shouldn't have been promoted?

It occurs to me I don't know of any process to deal with images that shouldn't have been promoted. For example, this morning I looked at some QIs of owls to see if it made sense to create a new genus-based subcategory. I clicked on one and realized it did not contain any attempt at identification, File:Owl,Birds Of Bangladesh.jpg (it's also very noisy, but that gets more into subjective matters that I wouldn't have otherwise brought up). As far as I know, images of animals need to be identified to at least the genus. In this case, it may be possible to simply find an identification for it and leave it as-is, but what to do in such cases otherwise? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Demoting QIs is a reoccurring question on this page. There are plenty of QIs that have slipped through the QIC system without being detected in time as not really up to the quality and documentation you'd expect from such an image. Right now there is no tool/form/procedure to remove the QI assessment once it is given. Ideas about having a sort of delisting system for QIs too, have been tossed around from time to time, but so far nothing has happened. --Cart (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• As the Guidelines point out: "[T]here is no formal mechanism for delisting quality images." This means that if a reviewer judges and image to be good enough and others don't notice that it's not, it can "slip through the net" as it were. However, there is a mechanism for removing the QI status if it has been given it erroneously. While judging quality is a matter of taste, eligibility is not. As we can see in the guidelines, most of the time the word "should" is used to describe what a Quality Images should have: they should not have too much noise, should be sharp etc. But sometimes the word "must" is used. For instance a QI "must have been created by a Commons user" and "must be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license". Therefore, if an image taken by someone who is not a Commoner is "accidentally" given QI status, that status must simply be removed. This is done by removing the "QualityImage" tag from the file page, I believe. An explanation can also be added to the file's discussion page.--Peulle (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

IP address as nominator

Hello, I'm surprised to see from time to time nominations at QIC by IP addresses. Is that ok? To me it looks like an obvious way to bypass the max amount of noms per day. I feel that having an account as prerequisite is not asking to much, other thoughts? --Poco² 19:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm with you. --Magnus (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd then decline those candidates and ask the user to login in or create an account, if nobody disagrees Poco² 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at the last ~10'000 entries (I think I miscounted and it's actually more, I ended up in late june 2019) and found only 17 done by IPs:

Editlink	Image	Action	Author/Upload	Nominator	Result
23 September 2019		Image Promotion	Armenak Margarian	Armenak Margarian	Approved by Michielverbeek
17 September 2019		Image Nomination	Mister rf	IP address	Approved by D-Kuru
17 September 2019	none	signature correction
17 September 2019		Image Nomination	Wauwau0977	IP address	declined by Ezarate
17 September 2019		Image Nomination	Mister rf Mister rf	IP address IP address	Approved by Peulle Declined by Peulle
17 September 2019		Image Nomination	Shesmax	IP address	Declined by Jacek Halicki
7 September 2019		Image Promotion	C messier	C messier	Approved by Imehling
7 September 2019		Image Promotion	Peulle	Peulle	Approved by Imehling
30 August 2019		Image Promotion	Axel Tschentscher Axel Tschentscher	Axel Tschentscher Axel Tschentscher	Approved by Imehling Approved by Imehling
17 August 2019		Image Promotion	Satdeep Gill	Satdeep Gill	Approved by Imehling
7 August 2019		Image comment	Imehling	Imehling	Approved by Ermell
4 August 2019		Image comment	Imehling	Imehling	Unassassed
31 July 2019		Image Nomination	Reinhard Müller	IP address	Approved by PantheraLeo1359531
26 July 2019		Image comment	Dktue	Dktue	Unassassed
25 July 2019		Image comment	Dktue	Dktue	Unassassed
21 July 2019		Image Promotion	Dirtsc Tournasol7	Dirtsc Tournasol7	Approved by Moroder Approved by Michielverbeek and Moroder
21 July 2019	none	Gallery fix

Total count:

• 6 Promotions with 8 promoted images (8 approved by users)
• 5 Nominations with 6 nominated images (3 approved, 3 declined)
• 4 Comments on 3 images (1 approved, 2 unassassed)
• 2 Edits with other content

If you found an edit that I missed, feel free to add it and/or leave a note!

Promotions are not possible for IPs anyway (it seems that sometimes users were just not logged in to their account). The nominations seem legit (so there is no evidence whatsoever that one user was pushing his images). The comments are sometimes a bit unfriendly and sometimes don't show a lot of know how (are we going to forbid IP comments next?). The rest are minor edits noone cares about.

My final result:  Strong oppose against overregulation that - as it seems - will have no effect anyway because there are no cases that would be prevented. --D-Kuru (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, аre you sure my photo was nominated by ip address (first photo in this list)? Please look the final promotion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_September_26_2019 --Armenak Margarian (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere is mentioned that your image was nominated by an IP adress. You are the author as well as the nominator. The IP approved (or promoted) your image to QI status even though this isn't possible. Nonetheless, the image was later approved to QI by user Michielverbeek anyway.

@Poco a poco: : Any ideas on my list?

--D-Kuru (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

D-Kuru, I'm a bit confused, what do you mean with "overregulation"? do you mean that preventing IPs from nomination is not worth it? In my opninion we should just state that IPs shall not nominate and that's it, if we come accross such a nom we decline it and move on Poco² 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Poco a poco: What I mean with overregulation is putting up new rules and guidelines that only exist to prevent a theoretical case that does not happen. In short: Yes, preventing IPs from nomination is not worth it. I have looked at +10'000 edits and the few edits done by IPs did not show any clue that the IP was used to undermine the 5-images-per-user rule. Since the case does not exist there is no positive usecase for such a regulation. The negative usecase is that all legit nominations for good images would not have been possible. The promotions done by IPs are not possible anyway.

Could an IP be abused to nominate multiple images by the same user? Of course! But I think we would notice very quickly that a user nominates 5 of his images and then an IP nominates 5 images of the same user. If you don't go 5+5 there is actually no use in nominating your images with an IP. The output would be so small that it would take pretty much the same ammount of time anyway. Since this rule has only theoretical positive usecases, but real negative usecases I'm still strong oppose this idea!

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Structured data for promoted quality images

I would like to discuss how we want to safe information about QIs as structured data. There is already a property for this Commons quality assessment (P6731). The question is do we only want to store the information that the image is a QI and when it got promoted or do we also want to store the users who nominated and reviewed the image? More general discussion here.
Second question: For now it is only possible to just add the information that this image is a QI, should that be added to all images by Bot or do we want to wait till we can add more information?(Of course that can also be added later if we just add the simple statement now). --GPSLeo (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding new review option

Some images would be approved by one or more users if there were some slight tweaks done to them (remove dust/lens spots, tilting, etc.). However, these images are not marked in any way (that's why I think some users miss it even they would improve the image quality). They just have a blue border like any other.
What about adding a new colour to indicate that the image is almost a QI. The template would be /Discuss and have a border with a different colour (I thought about to keep yellow). The current /Discuss template would be moved over to /Disputed. For /Disputed I thought about mixing the red and the green colour (so neither support nor decline), but I don't think that brown is a good border colour. Maybe orange? It would also be possible to keep yellow for disputed and use cyan for images on discussion. Here are some colours I thought about:

Suggestions 1:

• ____New: ________
• lApprove: ________
• _Decline: ________
• _Discuss: ________ (images with suggestions)
• Disputed: ________ (images with support and oppose votes)

Suggestions 2:

• ____New: ________
• lApprove: ________
• _Decline: ________
• _Discuss: ________ (images with suggestions)
• Disputed: ________ (images with support and oppose votes)

Suggestions 3:

• ____New: ________
• lApprove: ________
• _Decline: ________
• _Discuss: ________ (images with suggestions)
• Disputed: ________ (images with support and oppose votes)

Let me know what you think about this? --D-Kuru (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Seems a nice idea. But can you sort out another problem? If an image has been promoted by one vote it is impossible to make a helpful suggestion for improvement. The green is turned back to blue automatically. This might be suitable for the /Discuss template too. Looking at current nominations: I could suggest to Uoaei1 and Johann Jaritz that this tree stump photo could be cropped. I would ask Moroder and Ermell if the mark in the sky above the cross is a defect or an animal. I have mentioned four regular and very experienced voters so they can join the debate. Charles (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I dug through some more options today. You could have a dashed border.

EXAMPLE

I also found an idea for a double coloured border (so eg. green on the inside and cyan on the outside. You would just have to use a different css class with a border offset). Maybe there is also an option to have the a doble coloured dashed border (so alternation eg. green and cyan)

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have created a few designs. Most of the top gallery already exists. The bottom gallery are new designs. The bottom image would be either an image image that had suggestions at first, but was later approved by another user or was first approved and then suggestions were added.

• 
  Nominated Images
  
  
  
• 
  Discussed Image
  (Image with suggestions)
• 
  Discussed Image
  (Image with suggestions alternate)
• 
  Approved Image
  
  
  
• 
  Declined Image
  
  
  
• 
  Disputed Image
  (at least one support and one oppose vote)

• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed border)
  
  
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (double coloured border)
  
  
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed double coloured border)
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (double coloured border, outer is thicker)
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed pattern double coloured border)

• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed border)
  
  
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (double coloured border)
  
  
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed double coloured border)
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (double coloured border, outer is thicker)
• 
  Approved Image with suggestions
  (dahsed pattern double coloured border)

Any comments or constructive criticism for the new design suggestions?
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added two new suggestions. The first one has a thicker outer border. The second one has a dashed pattern with alternatng colours. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a new colour (purple) to the suggestions to have a colour that differes a little bit more to green. --D-Kuru (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

New gadget on the bottom of each candidate

This new gadget to promote, decline, discuss or comment the images seems to be very nice but it does not work with me --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about the QICVoter? --D-Kuru (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes but not the one with the red bar when you are in edit --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Supporting own rework

Is it okay that someone edits the photo of another photographer heavily and then votes "pro" for this editing? --Smial (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Difflinks: Upload reworked version, announcing new version, voting for new version.

Category:Unassessed QI candidates?

Can images in Category:Unassessed QI candidates be renominated at a later date? I'm not finding an answer at Quality images candidates, but perhaps I'm overlooking. Thank you. -Another Believer (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but in fact unassessed pictures are often below QI threshold. --A.Savin 20:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do we rather let the images pass unassessed than decline them? --D-Kuru (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They are often below QI or at borderline, but not always. To let the bot archive them as declined after 9 days unassessed, wouldn't be fair IMO. --A.Savin 12:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

So for File:Shirt, Woodlands, c. 1920, plastic buttons, glass beads, silk, hide - Portland Art Museum - Portland, Oregon - DSC09142.jpg, which was unassessed until I renominated and the image was promoted, should Category:Unassessed QI candidates be removed manually? -Another Believer (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --A.Savin 14:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. -Another Believer (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I keep nominating?

I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing here, but I am curious to get some feedback from more experience editors and photographers than me. I've been nominating lots of images by User:Daderot for QI status lately. Most of my nominations have been successful, as evidenced by the many QI promotion banners at User talk:Daderot. But, very recently many of my noms have been rejected by User:George Chernilevsky. Again, not saying George is assessing improperly, but I'm just wondering if I should stop nominating because I certainly don't want to waste editors' time. The images are all of similar quality to me, so I'm not sure what's changed or what's different. I posted a note at User talk:Steindy after they struck out many supports of my noms, curious to learn why. Seems maybe there's a bit more to the story, but I need more background info. Anyways, hoping some experienced editors can offer any advice? -Another Believer (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course, your nomination is helpful.

I'm not going to offend anyone. However, you must understand that the only fact of nomination is not a guarantee of the award of the image.

Please, look again to declined images. I always try to explain the reason for criticism. Try to see the flaws that were indicated for each job.

And yes, a few works by Daderot is QI in my opinion (Native American shirt, leaf in stone).

Try to see the reason for the low rating and choose candidates wisely. Or nominate everything and don’t be surprised at the ratings.

Very friendly -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly don't expect a nom to result in a promotion. Some of my noms were rejected before recently, and my eyes are a bit more trained as a result. But, my point is I'm the same person nominating what seem to be somewhat similar images, and my mostly support votes have turned into mostly rejections all of a sudden, and I'm not sure why. Of course I'm reviewing your comments and feedback, but I'm not sure why similar feedback wasn't being given before, when so many images were being promoted... -Another Believer (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(BTW, sorry if I'm just coming across as whining. I'm certainly not offended the images are not being promoted -- I did not even take the photographs. I'm just trying to increase the # of QIs at Commons and learn about this process from other editors. Thanks!) -Another Believer (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A certain number of mediocre images receive QI award if their errors have not been noticed. Just with a large influx of QI candidates, the number of random ratings increases. I do not consider myself as the most severe critic (or the kindest critic). And i do not attend QI every day, but occasionally. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Steindy: Do you care to expand on why you struck out so many of your support votes? Am I missing something? -Another Believer (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

QIC reviews can be a little uneven. If you strongly disagree with what someone said, and it's not a matter of simply fixing it, it is permitted to change /decline to /discuss to send it to the bottom. I think it's generally frowned upon for a nominator to do that with too many of their own nominations, but occasionally it's ok to get some clarity/other opinions.

There are some common reasons why things are declined here, which can all largely be predicted once you've seen enough of these. View a file at full size and look for: perspective issues (at the most basic level, if the subject is a square, are the horizontal/vertical lines squared parallel with the edges of the photograph?), too much noise, lack of sharpness in key areas, chromatic aberration (the [usually] purple/green fringing at areas of high contrast), very distracting items in the foreground (a branch going across the frame in front of a flower, another person's head in front of the subject), very distracting crops (part of the subject cut off, part of the subject too close to an edge), and resolution (at least 2 MP, but sometimes more, depending on the subject).

The extent to which reviewers prioritize these things or see them as deal-breakers does vary, but after a while I think people just start to recognize what are often considered deal-breakers and just stop nominating them (or fix them beforehand). It's extra challenging to nominate someone else's work for QI, because you're not in the best position to make changes.

For the images of museum artifacts that George declined, it does look like they suffer from some noise issues (specifically, messy denoising, with patches of noise around the objects and noise patterns showing up in various parts of the images). They're also not as sharp as many people would expect for a QI of a static object. It looks like they were taken with a relatively long exposure time, which is really hard to keep sharp without a tripod. The images of the tapestries, on the other hand, would be borderline if they had the perspective straightened and likely to fail otherwise (a rectangular subject that doesn't align with the frame is usually doomed).

If you're feeling gunshy about nominating, feel free to drop a couple examples on my talk page for an informal, friendly assessment of whether I think they'll pass. Many of us had a lot of declines when we started nominating until we kept at it for a while and got the hang of what works. :) Don't quit. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW if you look around the QIC page, you'll see that Steindy withdrew support from quite a lot of images. Not sure what the backstory is there, but I don't think you should take that as negative feedback of your images. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: This is all very helpful, thank you. Yeah, I'm not sure about the Steindy strikes but that's partly why I wanted to make sure images nominated by me weren't getting caught up in something else. Thanks again for the feedback. -Another Believer (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

 Info @Another Believer: The reason is easily explained and can also be found on my discussion page. If a user (so I) of another same user (so User:George Chernilevsky) gets 12(!) negative votes (even from positive photos) within less than 20 minutes, he receives the unmistakable message that he is not only a lousy photographer, but is also unable to to rate other pictures. That's why I not only withdrew my nominations, but also the reviews of other photos. Therefore, there is no reason for excitement. It's just the logical consequence. Incidentally, your nominations have previously been awarded by User:Podzemnik. --Steindy (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_June_02_2019

Just found a few here that were supported but for some reason not promoted. There may be others. What can be done with them? Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, images were not awarded by QICbot in this day. The problem was the misuse duplicate of the gallery tag.

QualityImage templates was added by many users manually. However, not all images received awards.

You can view all potential non-awarded nominations and add the QualityImage template manually.

With best regards -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Reset to "nomination" instead to "CR"

What new kind of fad is it, to reset the candidate to "nomination" instead to "CR" in the event of an objection to an approval? --Smial (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if you add a comment with QICvote, then the state goes to “Nomination”, but it should not change. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thx. Should be fixed, shouldn't it? --Smial (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

My bugreport to the Author -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Strike of QICbot for 2 days already

Hello Dschwen, our great friend and housekeeper QICbot is striking since Nov 22nd. Could you convince once more please to go back to his duties? --Poco a poco (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T239210

I am ready to fix it, waiting for write permission. -- Eatcha (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --XRay ^talk 11:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to thank you, too! --Aristeas (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I chatted with Daniel via Facebook. He already knows about the problem. However, he is now on a trip and will be able to fix it a bit later. Be patient, soon everything will be fixed. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I found a problem and it's now fixed. It should run normally from tommorow. I can't disclose the problem as it's a bug, which can be abused again. Yes, it was probably done by a troll/vandal or a newbie. I will send a patch to the repository --Eatcha (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Eatcha! Of course it seems to work again fine. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Great job, Eatcha, thank you. Poco a poco (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

recently promoted

As for years nearly nobody cares about old entries in the lists I moved all old entries back to the recently promoted page. Have fun. --Smial (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How many similar stash do you have ? -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No more. That was the complete remaining set. A long time ago we luckily had some colleagues who agreed to work through the backlog, but that's gone back to sleep and I saw the page grow again. It's boring to beg for help every few months. I can't even list how often the problem was discussed without result. A hundred people throw in their pictures on QIC and want to collect nice trophies, but for years the cleaning up has been hanging on to a handful of people who are willing to do the dirty work. It's no fun anymore. --Smial (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Smial I hear you. It's the same with FPC. I sorted thousands of photos with nice new galleries and all, but after that people just leave their photos in a heap at the unsorted sections. Well, if that's the way they want it, so be it. --Cart (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like this is a problem with a lack of sufficient categorization, isn't it? Maybe something has to be done about that before the photos are promoted, as per the thread I started below this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Ikan, not exactly. People put heaps of categories on their photos, most popular are the user cartegories, and they assign most FPC with the correct gallery/FP category as prompted to in creating the nomination page. But once the photo is promoted to FP, they can't be bothered with moving it from the 'Unsorted' section on the page to the right section. Take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants for example. The photos in the 'Unsorted' section have more categories than you'll ever see, but they are not moved into the gallery by the nominator/author. It's the same in most of the galleries. --Cart (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Does each promoted picture have to be manually moved to a gallery? I was never aware that another step was needed after promotion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ikan, yes it does. The Bot can only place it on the gallery page that was added to the nomination. Since user sometimes assign their FPCs to the wrong category, someone has to check the 'unsorted' section and make sure the image ends up in the right place. Sometimes even the person closing the nom, assigns the image to the wrong category/gallery, like this dog ending up in 'Places/Natural'. There have been some dedicated users taking care of this, but after some years it gets less fun to do. --Cart (talk) 11:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. There are really entirely too many manual tasks on this site, but I don't know what could really be done to change that effectively. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the whole system is ancient and could do with a complete overhaul in every aspect. Not sure how this could be done though since that would require a a total re-write of the code of the site, you can only go so far with Bots. Maybe we could get the code they use on Flickr for a discount, now that they are hanging on the ropes. --Cart (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The need to properly categorize

See here:

Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages.

There are very good reasons for this. Commons, as a repository of digital images, like a library, should be easily searchable. If we treat photos with irrelevant or unclear names that lack relevant categories as exemplary, we are making this repository a whole lot less useful and more user-unfriendly to people using Commons as a resource.

So why it is OK that some QIC regulars pretend that these requirements don't exist and routinely vote to promote files they know are ill-named or insufficiently or improperly categorized, claiming that Commons is only about photo quality, or in one user's words "here is no quality categorisation candidates"? I would have to think it's because they don't care about anyone who would use Commons as the repository of images it's supposed to be. And then the next question is, what are we going to do about it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What would you do? Some people you can explain something and they'll maybe even say Thank you for the help. Some others (in particular, the user you are citing) are completely discussion-resistant. A block might be a good idea, but be careful, many of them have a mighty supporters' lobby. --A.Savin 03:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the solution is for more users to care about proper categorization and meaningful filenames, in the interest of users of this repository of images - and because they care, to make sure to monitor votes and discussions at QIC and outvote those who are trying to sabotage the implementation of these important policies and make this repository much less useful and user-friendly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You mention the idea of a block, but have there been any warnings from admins to people who willfully disregard these guidelines and try to gaslight everyone into believing they don't exist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably most admins will say "What policies are violated, please?" and QIC guidelines are no policies. But the Common Sense solution is, of course, sooner or later a block. --A.Savin 11:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand your displeasure, but the criteria give no indication of how precise or comprehensive descriptions and categories must be. They are relatively general. The dilemma is: if you widen the rules or tighten the wording, there will always be people who will demand letter by letter compliance. We already have the problem on QIC every day e.g. with the interpretation of the rules on image noise, whereby really good photos are often rejected because someone interprets "shouldn't have image noise" absolutely, regardless of the conditions at the time of shooting, and on the other hand some photographers for fear their photo might be rejected because of this rule, spoiling their images in the most absurd way by blurring. In my opinion, it might be a way out to give photographers a few examples to help them decide which components a photo description should include. For example, in politician portraits, at least the role (deputy, minister, etc.) and the party should be given, not just the name. But even if we extend or clarify the rules, there will still be room for interpretation. The photo with the ambulance showed the city, time and occasion, that was enough for me. That was not sufficient for you. Well, then one votes pro and the other contra, I have no problem with that. I would consider it an extremely bad idea to threaten collaborators on commons with a block if they have an opinion on all these rules, which can be interpreted very widely, which is not absolutely true to the line. Who determines the line(s)? --Smial (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Smial, you're talking about legitimate disagreements about how much clarity is needed in file descriptions. I'm talking about the "argument" that it doesn't matter at all if a filename is meaningless and there are no relevant categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Completely meaningless filenames or offending filenames or factually incorrect filenames should be changed to proper ones. But I would in any case resist if someone would prescribe or demand certain naming schemes in a binding way. Or if someone would require file names with details that actually belong in the file description. --Smial (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I would oppose that last sentence, too. And what about useless or improper categorization? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And I think the main point is that we should keep in mind why it's important to have meaningful filenames, good categorization and reasonable file descriptions: If we don't, we are making this repository of images much less useful or even usable for people who use this site as a resource. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't an abstract discussion. Right now, a photo with only a single category when it should have several is leading in Consensual Review. My observation is that not enough people care whether this site is really useful for anyone except the photographers who contribute to it. Everyone is indebted to photograhers for volunteering to contribute content, of course! But the idea of a wiki is really to serve users, not primarily to serve contributors. And if you think I'm wrong about this, explain why. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a handy reference on all sorts of things. Wikivoyage is a travel guide for the benefit of travelers. Commons is a repository of photos for people to use any way they like, as long as they give credit. Am I right? Or is the attitude, in spite of the QI criteria, that users are lucky just to have access to the images, even if they're insufficiently categorized and they can't find what they're looking for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was quite angry about the fact that Ralf didn't think it was necessary to add anything to the description of his two really good and worth seeing photos of the Christmas market. I had no idea what "Altstaedter Markt" is and where it is. Although the categories were correct, even those in the next upper level said nothing about the location. So another level higher... Oh: Prague! Such things are absolutely not friendly to subsequent users and in such cases a rejection of the candidacy is justified. But if we want to tighten the requirements for picture descriptions and categorizations or give them more weight, we have to be careful that our well-known nit-pickers don't get an additional weapon in their hands. --Smial (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Ps: Compared to the early years, QIC has unfortunately developed from a tool that was intended to encourage Wikipedians to observe certain minimum standards for photos in order to raise the quality of the illustrations in general, in parts into a forum for know-it-alls and mierenneukers. Thus QIC actually serves Wikipedia less and less. I regret this very much, because for self-promoters there are enough alternatives, for example flickr. --Smial (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Pps: We do not need trolls. --Smial (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I've really had it with this kind of bullshit. On Wikivoyage, we do not hesitate to warn people to follow site guidelines and then block them, initially for short periods but ultimately indefinitely, if necessary, for habitually flouting them. This guy not only flouts them, he continually tries to gaslight people into believing that a QI criterion that's listed at the top of the QIC page does not exist. When is an admin going to warn him he'd better shape up or it will be necessary to block him, and what has to be done in order to light a fire under a staff that is letting jury nullification run rampant? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

My proposition is: the QICbot should be clear the gallery of images that were not categorized

Why we categorize recently promoted QI?
1. For placement in the respective galleries. I do not think this is a very useful feature for Commons users / visitors. In any category, you can now filter the QI or directly browse categories "Quality images of ..."
2. For the rebuilding of the presentation pages "recently promoted QIs. However, these pages contain only 4 images of the corresponding subjects. That means, if we sorted 20, 30 or more photos of automobules, then only 4 images will fall into the rebuilded gallery. For the rest - point 1 only. It turns out that this goal is not fundamental either.

My proposition is: after sorting categorized images, the QICbot should clear the gallery of images that were not categorized. If authors does not care about his images and he is not interested in getting it to the galleries (point 2), then such processing will be fair. And, as a result, we will solve the problem of categorization, since the goals in points 1 and 2 are not really important.
Perhaps now this proposal will seem too revolutionary and even anarchic to you, but once again consider the imaginary importance of points 1 and 2 and the real efforts for categorization. Categories only instead of galleries is a good compromise, in my opinion. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

+1. I would support that. Probably there is no easy way to add a time delay to give photographers more than one day to sort their own pictures into galleries. But if that's not feasible, then 24h deadline and done. For the laziness of photographers, who are eager for many nice badges but don't care about the tedious clean-up work, I have no more understanding after so many years and suggestions to improve the process. Their pictures just don't make it into the showcase galleries anymore. -- Smial (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO categories are enough. My photographs are always categorized as QI by location and subject and if a category "Quality images of" does not exist, but it's useful, I create it. The galleries are to big and not useful for anybody. The recent 4 promoted images can be created from categories too, every day. --XRay ^talk 11:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The recent 4 promoted images can be created from categories too, every day. But someone has to do that. Who? Today the qicbot does the job from the manually created galleries. If the galleries are removed, who writes the necessary bot or reworks qicbot? This topic appears every year and nothing happens. --Smial (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

On Commons talk:Quality images there is a suggestion about replacing all "those 4 images" from galleries with the daily promoted QIs, managed by QICBot, if we abandon the now-not-so-functioning QI galleries. --Cart (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek, Robert Flogaus-Faust, Smial, W.carter, Stepro, Podzemnik, Dschwen, Famberhorst, Agnes Monkelbaan, and Ermell:  : have a look, please. This problem has a long history. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked, but I don't quite understand it. QIC nominations don't already have categories in them, do they? So do categories all have to be manually added after the photo passes? That seems like another thing we should be requesting as a software change the next time the Wikimedia Foundation asks for suggestions: A form requiring a category at the time of nomination at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ikan, George, Smial, XRay: Looks like a lot of confusion going on here since this discussion is run parallell to a similar one about giving up the now mostly redundant QI galleries on Commons talk:Quality images, a reoccurring discussion. Have a look. Note: There is also some confusion since the word "categories" is used for both our real categories and the QI galleries/(aka QI categories). When this project was started, those were probably more or less the same, but things have developed considerably since then. Perhaps it would be better to keep these discussions about the same subject on the same talk page. --Cart (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• That other thread is so much clearer! My reaction to the present situation is, what an overly complex system and set of categories! We want categories and descriptions that help users find photos on subjects they're looking for, but if possible, we should avoid having any others that require any input from any user. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, "categorization" here means "additional manual sorting for placement on relevant gallery pages". I believe this should be simplified. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Because every time I have to fight with the English language. I don't really know what this is about. I add categories to the photo, which fits in as well as possible. But I don't know anything about galleries. I've never added that.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Famberhorst: Ja, verschillende talen zijn waarschijnlijk nog een reden dat de galerijen niet veel worden gebruikt. De normale categorieën zijn voldoende om foto's te vinden. Plus een goede fotonaam en beschrijving op de pagina van de foto. De galerijen zijn de verzamelingen foto's waartoe u toegang hebt door te klikken op de links op de Commons: Quality Images, zoals die met planten: Commons:Quality images/Subject/Plant life. De FP-galerijen zijn vergelijkbaar, zoals Commons:Featured pictures/Plants, soms ook "FP category" genoemd. Maar omdat we zoveel meer QI's hebben dan FP's, is het werk van het sorteren van alle foto's in de juiste galerij overweldigend voor de paar mensen die dat doen. Ik help vaak de FP's in de juiste sectie in de FP-galerijen te sorteren en ik weet dat sommige gebruikers proberen hun best te doen met de QI-galerijen. Toen Commons nieuw was, waren de QI-galerijen gemakkelijker om mee te werken, maar nu zijn ze min of meer overbodig. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Cart Hartelijk dank voor uw uitleg. Ik heb vandaag weer wat geleerd en ben waarschijnlijk al jaren tekort geschoten.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Beste Famberhorst, je hebt zeker niet tekort geschoten. Net als zoveel anderen, wist je het gewoon niet. Niemand kan alles weten over Commons. Nu hoeven we alleen dat wat niet meer werkt te repareren, de site is altijd in ontwikkeling. --Cart (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are talking about the images in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted that were not transferred to another gallery after a certain time, yes I support the idea, given the gallery's title. --MB-one (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Having so many images in the gallery of recently promoted QIs makes loading the gallery or the categorization tool extremely slow for me. If only 200 images were loaded at a time offering more with a mousclick this problem could be solved. Better software would be helpful. More meaningful image names and at least a reasonable description in English could also help. I simply do not know how to categorize all the images with buildings and landscapes. And apparently hardly anyone does; so these images accumulate and slow dowm the categorization tool. If I right-click on an image and open it in a new tab I can see the description and the categories and a larger version of the image at least. If I make a tiny mistake just once, e. g. by left-clicking an image, all my work is gone (at least I have no idea how to recover it once the borders of my categorized images are yellow). I assume this also is a software problem. Removing images from the gallery after ca. 1 week should be a sufficient alternative solution to better software, though. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)