This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello! A QI image must have a descrition. I discussed with Hockei our point of view without result. Is an english description necessary or sufficient for an in native language? We can't find an answer and so I asked for other opinions. The guidelines say: "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. ..."--XRaytalk06:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to review an QIC in a language which I cannot understand and it is not obvious what is the subject of the picture, I'd ask for an English description. Of course I could translate it and so have an idea whether the subject is good illustrated, but I think that that effort corresponds to the nominator/author. Sometimes it could be that the subject is obvious but the description, which I cannot understand is too generic and does not talk about a water well, but just about the place where it is located.
Conclusion: as you never know about the language skills of the reviewer the description should be in English since also that description (especially in the file page) is part of the contents to be reviewed. If there is no English description in QIC but there is one in the file page that would also be fine to me (although usually, using the QICnominator, both are the same). Poco211:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it must never be a requirement that a file page has an English description to be nominated and reviewed. For practical reasons it shall be encouraged though. Commons is a multi-lingual project, and by imposing it as a requirement we discourage contributions from users, who master languages, which are linguistically very different from English (say Chinese or Russian), and who does not know the English language at all. But of course it is a problem if the majority of the reviewers have no idea what is written. However, for new non-English speaking users, care shall be taken not to alienate them by requiring an English description. Rather we shall try and find bi-lingual users who can help translate, and as new users become more familiar with Commons connect them with the bi-lingual users, such that they can get assistence. It is my experience that fellow edits are often willing to help when asked for translation assistance. And often automated translation tools help as well when in doubt. Experienced users who are well known to master English as well should be expected to have an English description as well as whatever native description to ease the review process in my opinion. --Slaunger (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
Dear QIC colleagues,
I wonder if all of you know about the present conflict involving the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and some wiki communities (especially the English and German Wikipedias), concerning the recent roll-out of the MediaViewer. This is not probably the best place to make the announcement (I have already made it in the Village Pump) but I want to make sure that the FPC and QIC people (who are mostly concerned with image editing) are aware of it. The specific objective of this post is to make you know about this open letter addressed to the WMF, which can be signed by any logged-in editor: [1]. This is a serious matter and I am concerned with the impact the conflict may have in our volunteer collaboration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"3.Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description"
Hello.
I notice that less and less QI candidates does meet this requirement. Please remember that a correct categorization, at a good level, is a mandatory. An opposition vote should be receivable only for the motive of a non- or a bad- categorization, title and description.
Ich spreche kein perfekt englisch. Englisch ist in der Beschreibung nicht zwingend. Man (ich gern, und, besser, andere Deutsche) kann helfen für Kategorien (und sie sind nicht alle in Englisch...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd rather encourage people to try and save as many candidates as possible rather than "finding a reason" to put an oppose down. At least if it is possible to add a meaningful category, and there a description (in whatever language) is certainly helpful. --Dschwen (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To help out non-English speaking contributors, the reviewer could always help out by re-categorizing the image if they think the current categorization is poor. -- Cfynn (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Müssen alle Linien absolut senkrecht sein?
Ich kann es schwer in Englisch ausdrücken, deshalb in Deutsch: Mir fällt auf, dass seit einiger Zeit verstärkt Fotos wegen geringfügig stürzender Linien als untauglich oder zumindest qualitativ nicht ausreichend zurückgewiesen werden. Die Folge davon ist, dass sich jeder bemüht, die Perspektive zu korrigieren, was jedoch häufig zu unnatürlichen Verzerrungen führt. Ich glaube deshalb, dass wir von einem übertriebenen "needs perspective correction" bald wieder wegkommen sollten. Beste Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generell gebe ich dir Recht: hier wird dann und wann übertrieben was die Korrektur von stürtzenden Linien angeht. Obwohl ich Mathematiker bin, muss für micht nicht alles zwingend kerzengerade sein. Der optische Eindruck muss immer noch stimmig sein und der ist es eben oft, wenn man nicht alles 100% entstürzt. Insbesondere wenn die perspektivische Verzeichnung gar nicht zum Hauptobjekt gehört oder aber eine 100% Begradigung andere unschöne Effekte hervorrufen würde oder etwas gänzlich Unnatürliches fabriziert. Allerdings möchte ich hier auch eine kleine Einschränkung machen: ab und an sehe ich Begradigungen, die nicht gut gelungen sind und hier finde ich schon, dass man nachbessern soll im Sinne der QI-Richtlinien. Denn nur halbherzige Korrekturen können manchmal ebenso störend sein wie gar keine Korrekturen. Man könnte vielleicht mal einen Beispielkatalog machen, wo es geboten ist, es exakt zu entfernen und wo es keine gute Idee ist. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also wenn da tatsächlich ein Umdenken erfolgt und das Entstellen der Bilder bald nicht mehr Bedingung ist, um eine Auszeichnung als QI zu bekommen, sondern der optische Eindruck zählt, dann würde ich auch wieder das eine oder andere Bild hier vorstellen. Genau das ist nämlich der Grund, warum ich hier schon lange nicht mehr mitmache. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nunja, die Sache mit dem Entstürzen per Software habe ja mehr oder weniger ich vor etlichen Jahren bei Fotoworkshops in der DE-Wikipedia propagiert. Da habe ich aber stets und von Beginn an sowohl auf technische Grenzen als auch auf gestalterische Aspekte hingewiesen, die es je nach Umständen angezeigt lassen, auf 100%ige Begradigungen zu verzichten. Was hier auf com:qic in dieser Hinsicht abläuft, kann ich daher nur noch mit Kopfschütteln begleiten. Welch absurden und grotesken Verzerrungen hier präsentiert werden, nur damit alle Senkrechten beim Objekt auch senkrecht im Bild erscheinen - das ist kaum noch auszuhalten. Viel schlimmer: Solche Darstellungen vermitteln einem unbedarften Leser ein ebenso grotesk verzerrtes Bild des visuellen Eindrucks vor Ort. Solange wir in der Wikipedia keine Möglichkeit haben, dem Leser echte Kugelpanoramen zu präsentieren, sehen solche entstürzten Bilder oder auch gestitchte Superweitwinkelansichten häufig surreal und entstellend, kurz: Scheiße aus. Auch wenn sie häufig in bewundernswerter technischer Perfektion abgeliefert werden. -- Smial (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Es gibt einige Fälle, wo Verzerren sinnvoll und angebracht ist. Aber viele denken nicht dran, daß sowas immer mit einer immensen Verschlechterung einhergeht, zumindest physikalisch. Bei jeder noch so kleinen Verzerrung müssen alle Pixel des Bildes neu interpoliert werden. --Ralf Roleček12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neu interpolieren muß man auch beim schlichten Drehen von Bildern, falls der Horizont schief geraten ist. Auch bei Entzerrungen von Kissen- oder Tonnenverzeichnungen wird interpoliert, ebenso bei der Beseitigung anderer Linsenfehler wie CA. Sogar die Entwicklung der Raw-Datei steckt voller Interpolationen und bei aktuellen Kompaktkameras wird das heutzutage alles ohne weiteres Zutun des Fotografen automagisch gemacht. Viele DSLR können das inzwischen auch, abschaltbar natürlich. Interpolation ist von daher nicht prinzipiell grottenschlecht. Bei der perspektivischen Entzerrung per Software kommt jedoch erschwerend hinzu, daß üblicherweise, z.B. beim gängigen Hausfassaden- oder Kirchturmknipsen schräg nach oben, in den gestauchten Bereichen, also "untenrum" Pixel verloren gehen, während oberhalb der Bildmitte Pixel hinzuerfunden werden müssen. Um die dadurch zwangsläufig entstandenen Unschärfen in den Griff zu bekommen, muß sehr sophisticated nachgeschärft werden. Bei stärkeren Eingriffen kommt man nicht darum herum, das fertige Bild ein Stück weit kleiner zu skalieren, je mehr korrigiert wurde, um so stärker. Über die Problematik teilweise verdeckter Objekte, beispielsweise von Figuren, die oberhalb vorstehender Simse angebracht sind, habe ich an anderer Stelle schon mal geschrieben. Ich stehe auf dem Standpunkt, daß solche Bildkorrekturen immer im Einzelfall betrachtet und beurteilt werden müssen und es kontraproduktiv ist, die Senkrechten zum Dogma zu erheben. Das hat mit "realistischer" Abbildung oft genug nichts mehr zu tun und versaut oft genug die Ästhetik. -- Smial (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mir fehlen einige Aspekte an der derzeitigen QI-Vorgabe. Präzisierungen, bzw. Lockerungen (z.b. 1% Schräge als akzeptabler Winkel) würde ich sehr begrüßen: 1) Derzeit lautet die Vorgabe nur, dass die Linien begradigt werden sollen. Es wird aber kein Maximalwinkel der Korrektur angegeben. Das Beispiel mit dem Kirchturm hat lediglich eine Korrektur von vielleicht 5 Grad, wo der Eingriff eindeutig zu empfehlen ist. Wird aber ein Winkel von gern mal 30 Grad begradigt sieht das einfach nicht gut aus, weil die horizontalen Linien zu steil abfallen. 2) Bei größeren Korrekturen stellt sich dann auch die Frage, welche Breite die "richtige" ist. Die an der Basis oder in der Mitte? Die Antwort lautet "die in Augenhöhe", die von der Software aber nicht erkannt werden kann. In jedem Fall ist die "Seitenverhältnis-Korrektheit" nicht mehr gegeben 3) Wenn ich die senkrechten Linien begradigen soll, warum eigentlich nicht auch die horizontalen? 4) Eine gewisse Software bietet auch "ausgewogene Korrektur" an, die sowohl Rücksicht auf die üblichen 0,5% Objektivfehler nimmt und exakt diese 0,5% Schräge übrig lässt, bzw. das Verhältnis der horizontalen und vertikalen berücksichtigt. Dadurch wird das "bauchige" und das "entgegenfallende" umgangen. --Thomas Ledl (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das wird so nicht funktionieren, von einer derartigen Lockerung halte ich gar nichts, Thomas Ledl. Die immer wieder gerne genannte "Restperspektive" ist so eine schöne Formulierung aus de-wp. Ich sehe es genauso, dass unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen keine geraden vertikalen Linien zu erwarten sind. Nun aber hinzugehen und einen aus der Luft gegriffenen Wert von 0,5%, 1% Schräge etc. in die Regeln zu schreiben ist kontraproduktiv. Das kann bei den Reviews kein Mensch in aktzeptabler Zeit nachprüfen - sind vielleicht 1,1% Schräge gerade noch OK usw. Deswegen: Entweder 100% begradigt, oder eben bewusst mit den stürzenden Linien komponieren, bzw. so fotografieren, dass klar ist, dass die Linien so gewollt sind. Ein weiteres Problem bei deinem Vorschlag sehe ich darin, dass dieser dazu führen könnte, dass nachlässiger fotografiert bzw. hochgeladen wird. Nach dem Motto: Wenn diese 1%-Regel schon gilt, dann muss ich meine Fotos auch nicht mehr vernünftig drehen, dann sind es links eben 0,7% und rechts 1,2% Abweichung. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(EC/BK) Nein, das kann man tatsächlich nicht in Prozent- oder Winkelwerten festlegen. Ich wende mich nur gegen die, mit Verlaub, stumpfsinnige, zwingende Anwendung dieser 100%-Korrekturregel, die in viel zu vielen Fällen zu völlig kranken Ergebnissen führt. Es ist nicht Aufgabe dokumentarischer Fotografie, die Perspektive technischer Zeichnungen oder von Architektenentwürfen exakt nachzubilden, sondern unseren Lesern einen nachvollziehbaren Eindruck der örtlichen Gegebenheiten zu vermitteln. Die Frage, die sich ein Beurteiler bei QIC in solchen Fällen stellen muß, sollte folglich nicht sein "ist alles 100% korrekt vertikal korrigiert", sondern "ist das Objekt adäquat dargestellt". Dieser 100%-Fetisch ignoriert sowohl örtliche Gegebenheiten als auch gestalterische Absichten des Fotografen. Ich glaube, daß man mit etwas Erfahrung relativ sicher unterscheiden kann, ob der Wikiknipser einfach nur geschlampt hat, oder ob die verwendete Perspektive beabsichtigt war. Im Zweifel kann man ja rückfragen. Ich selbst korrigiere Bilder durchaus oft auf 100% Senkrechte, aber nicht um jeden Preis - wenn mir das Resultat arg sureal erscheint, ziehe ich den Regler manuell wieder runter, bis mir das Ergebnis halbwegs naturnah erscheint. Gelegentlich kann dabei durchaus auch 0% Korrektur herauskommen. -- Smial (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, müssen sie nicht. Aber es sollte dann aber auch erkennbar sei, dass die stürzenden Lianen gewollt sind. Und die Verwendung der nicht senkrechten Linienen, muss Komposition's mässig für das Foto natürlich auch stimmen. Kurzum: Nach dem Motto, wenn schon stürzende Linien, dann richtig. Und ein gutes gemachtes Foto muss nicht nach bearbeitet werden. Von den mehr oder weniger automatischen Korrekturen, die bei der RAW-Entwiklung geschehen sollten (Objektivkorrekturen, Farbwert usw.), mal abgesehen.
Was eine gute Verzerrung ist und was nicht, dass kommt natürlich auch auf die verwendet Brennweite (Blickwinkel) an. Bei einem Blickwinkel eines extremen Weitwinkel sind solche Verzerrungen unumgänglich und da Fehlen hinterlässt beim Betrachter das Gefühl das was Fehlt. Wenn sich die schrägen Linien mittig unter (senkrechte) oder neben (waagrechte) dem Bild treffen, stört das den Betrachter in der Regel nicht, es hat dann immer noch das Gefühl das Bild sein gerade. Am ärgsten stören solche schrägen Linien bei den was wir als Normalbrennweite bezeichnen. Bei einer Detailaufnahme eines Wasserspeiers einer Kirche stört es nicht das im Hintergrund die Kirchenfenster usw. schräg sind. Eben auch hier wenn schon denn schon. Dem Betrachter muss auf den ersten Blick einleuchten das die stürzenden Linien gewollt sind. --Bobo11 (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mal sehen, was die QI-Werter hier sagen. Die komplette Entzerrung wäre hier dann eine Verzerrung der Realität. Bei Bedarf kann ich gerne mal das Ergebnis dessen hochladen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn jemand so eine Perspektiv"korrektur" von mir verlangt, nehme ich das Bild aus der Wertung. Bis auf Ausnahmen verzerre ich meine Fotos nicht. --Ralf Roleček15:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das Bild aus der Wertung zu nehmen ist auch keine Lösung, es gehören da schon die Regeln geändert. Es ist ja nicht bloß ein Spiel fürs eigene Ego, sondern es entstehen Kategorien, in denen beim Klicken auf "Gute Bilder" nur die entstellten als gut angepriesen werden - hätte gern einen Euro für jedes Kopfschütteln der Betrachter ... Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ça va ? On ne dérange pas ? Cette discution serait si intéressante si elle n'était pas réservée aux seuls germanophones ! Mais telle quelle, elle n'a pas de sens. Vous ne pouvez pas ainsi annexer "Commons", et en tous cas, rien n'y changer...--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least three participants in this discussion, including myself, have some problems to describe complex issues in English. If someone with good English and German skills could write a summary of the previous considerations, I would appreciate that very much. -- Smial (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mir fällt die deutsche Formulierung dieser Thematik ehrlich gesagt ein wenig leichter, daher meine Ergänzung in deutsch: Hi! Einen kleinen Kommentar möchte ich an dieser Stelle auch äußern. Mir ist schon aufgefallen, dass auf exakt senkrechte Linien zu viel Wert gelegt wird. Klar achtet man dann auch selbst darauf. Aber die Foto verliert eigentlich an Qualität, wenn nur geringe Korrekturen (drehen, Perspektive) vorgenommen werden müssen. Meiner Meinung nach sollte man es dann besser so lassen wie es ist und dies akzeptieren. Besonders heftig finde ich das Geraderücken allerdings, wenn zum Beispiel nach oben fotografiert wird und damit automatisch stürzende Linien entstehen. Es ist weder sinnvoll noch natürlich Elemente wie Fenster oder Skulpturen, die sich ab der 2. Etage befinden, geradezurücken. Und ebenso negativ empfinde ich dies bei historischen Gebäuden. Deren "Senkrechten" sind keine Bezugsgröße und da ist das Geraderichten sogar falsch. Denn gerade diese Gebäude haben oft keine echten Senkrechten. Ich wäre dafür, dass man zwar bei einer Zentralperspektive auf senkrechte (oder gerade) Linien achtet, aber nur, wenn sie auch in Wirklichkeit gerade sind. Und das letzte Pixel sollte man nicht herauskitzeln, denn das verschlechtert die Aufnahme nur. Und noch ein Zitat aus den Richtlinien: "Perspective distortion should ... be insignificant." Nicht signifikant, sie muss aber auch nicht exakt sein. (In vielen Fällen fände ich es deutlich wichtiger, auf den Punkt "Bildkomposition" stärker zu achten. Und vielleicht sollte es auch mal akzeptabel sein, dass ein Teil des Himmels überbelichtet ist - dort, wo sich die Sonne hinter den Wolken befindet. ;-) Aber das ist vielleicht ein anderes Thema.)--XRaytalk06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Und noch mal Widerspruch, XRay: Gerade solche Korrekturen, die nur sehr gering sind, sollten unbedingt vorgenommen werden. Gerade vertikale Linien haben sich als Standard in der Architekturfotografie (sinnvollerweise) durchgesetzt. Ein wenig schiefer Horizont ist eben ein schiefer Horizont. Ein wenig stürzende Linien sind eben immer noch stürzend. Dass beim Drehen oder (moderatem) Geraderücken so viel Qualität verloren geht kann ich aus der Praxis nicht bestätigen. Bei sehr extremen Korrekturen sieht das natürlich anders aus. Es bringt aus meiner Sicht nichts, die Kriterien aufzuweichen. Vielmehr sollte man auf die Vernunft der Reviewer hoffen - niemand erwartet bei einer Aufnahme, die im 45°-Winkel nach oben geht, 100% gerade Linien. Wenn du nicht einverstanden bist kannst du ein Bild ja immer noch in CR schicken. Das Kriterium des 100% ausbrennungsfreien Himmels halte ich hingegen tatsächlich für hinterfragenswert. Das Problem ist, dass du bei bestimmten Lichtsituationen extrem unterbelichten musst um einen komplett durchgezeichneten Himmel zu bekommen. Das Resultat ist, dass bildwichtige Bestandteile (meist Gebäude etc.) zu dunkel sind, du manuell die Helligkeit / Tiefen hochziehen musst und damit eine Menge Rauschen in den Schattenbereichen erzeugst. Die Verwendung von HDR in solcher Fällen ist natürlich möglich, führt bei Aufnahmen aus der Hand aber ggf. zu anderen Problemen. Dass die Bildkomposition wichtig ist, da gebe ich dir völlig recht. Da hat aber jeder andere Vorstellungen und diese sollten nicht zu einem QI-Kriterium erhoben werden. Bei FPC sieht das natürlich anders aus, da spielt Komposition, Licht etc. die dominierende Rolle. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
niemand erwartet bei einer Aufnahme, die im 45°-Winkel nach oben geht, 100% gerade Linien Und genau das habe ich hier leider anders erlebt. Ich will diesen Irr- und Widersinn mal auch an einem praktischen Beisiel zu untermauern:
Währen dieses Bild ohne gröβere Diskussionen als QI gewertet wurde ...
...wurde hier bei einem nahezu gleichen ewig diskutiert und kritisiert, dass die im Hintergrund befindlichen Bauwerke sich neigen und abgelehnt.
Problem dabei: wir haben keine einheitlichen Standards und mir ist immer noch nicht klar, was das zweite Bild qualitativ minderwertiger macht. Es geht mir nicht darum, dass zwingend jedes Bild von mir QI wird aber sehr wohl darum, dass man stringend und nachvollziehbar anhand objektiv nachvollziehbarer Kriterien argumentiert. Während bei FP gerne mal das Bauchgefühl gegen ein Bild sprechen kann sollte bei QI derartiges nicht passieren. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Der Standard ist: Vertikale Linien korrigieren. Ich habe mir das zweite Bild gerade mal in Lightroom geladen. Eine Auto-Korrektur lieferte mir dort ohne weiteres Nachjustieren direkt sehr gute Ergebnisse. Überkorrigiert wirkte das Bild auch nicht. Warum also die Linien schräg lassen? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Die Frage ist nicht: warum sie korrigieren sondern warum bringt die korrigierte Fassung einen visuellen Vorteil und ist die "unkorrigierte Fassung" von mangelhafter Qualität im Sinne des Projektes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Du drehst dich argumentativ im Kreise: Weiter oben hast du noch nach objektiven Kritieren gesucht. Wenn ich mich bei jedem Bild fragen muss, sind leicht schräge Linien noch im Sinne des Projekts, verliert die Beurteilung jegliche Objektivität. Von daher würde ich bei nur moderaten Korrekturen diese einfach durchführen, so dass ein Reviewer leicht überprüfen kann, ob du vertikale Linien korrekt korrigiert hast. Das ist durchaus im Sinne der Gesamtqualitätssteigerung da, und da sind wir uns vermutlich einig, vernünftig korrigierte Gebäudeaufnahmen besser sind, als wenn alles krumm und schief ist. Nicht ohne Grund nivellieren Architekturfotografen seit Jahrzehnten 100%ig und shiften dann mit einem T&S-Objektiv (oder eben mit der Großformatkamera, bei der man alles manuell einstellen kann) nach oben, um eben exakt vertikale Linien zu erhalten. Für Gebäude sollten wir uns an diesem Standard orientieren und diesen nicht unnötig aufweichen. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drehe mich mitnichten im Kreis. Wir haben uns weiter oben darauf verständigt, keine festen Zahlenwerte einzuführen (das wäre ja das Maximum an Objektivität) sondern den gesunden Verstand walten zu lassen. Dazu gehört für mich auch, eine gewisse Varianz zuzulassen. Eine Varianz an persönlichen Geschmacksfragen und selbst kleine Fehlerchen zu akzeptieren. Ein Bild bspw. wegen eines kaum wahrnehmbaren Senorflecks nicht zu wählen finde ich hohl. Ebenso ist z.B. die Belichtungsfrage eine Sache mit gewissen Spielräumen. mattbuck z.b. (bekanntermaßen bin ich nicht sein größer Fan) stellt generell mal mehr mal weniger deutlich unterbelichtete Bilder hier rein (selbst Tagaufnahmen mit großer Lichtreserve). Würde ich meinen Maßstab zugrunde legen müsste ich 90% seiner Bilder ablehnen. Aber das mache ich nicht weil ich in gewissen Fällen das einfach als Geschmacksfrage durchgehen lasse.
Zurück zu diesem Fall. Im 2. Bild wurde überdies auch eine Perspektivenkorrektur vorgenommen. Die Bauten im Hintergrund sind irrelevant, nicht das Hauptmotiv und deren leicht neigenden Wände mögen nur dann stören wenn man aus dem Hintergrund einen Zuschnitt machen wollte. Aber das ist nicht der Sinn der QI. Wenn das Bild den "Vorschautest" besteht (also ordentlich in der Vorschau aussieht) und keine gröberen Fehler aufweist dann ist das QI. Alles andere ist gesponnen und übersteigt teilweise sogar die fachliche Auseinandersetzung, die man bei FPC vorfindet. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Für mich ist etwas auf jeden Fall spätenstens dann nicht mehr korrekturwürdig, wenn ich bei Lightroom quasi einen Wert zwischen 0,1 und 0,2 finden soll, der nicht einstellbar ist. Auch das habe ich schon gehabt. Und ebenso ein Geraderücken, wenn es eigentlich nicht möglich oder sinnvoll ist. (Es war eine Sicht auf ein Gebäudeelement ca. 10 m über dem Boden. Nach dem Geraderücken stimmten zwar die Senkrechten, aber eine Frontalansicht war es natürlich nicht geworden. Das wirkt meiner Meinung nach sehr gezwungen.) Bei größeren Korrekturen stimme ich zu, die sollte man vornehmen. Aber wie gesagt, mit Sinn. Ein Gebäude, welches auseinanderläuft, weil man vor hunderten Jahren keine vernünftigen Fundamente gemacht hat oder Stützen fehlen, hat eben auseinanderlaufende Linien. (Wir haben am Ort so ein Gebäude.) Und nur um solche Fälle der unnötigen Perspektivkorrektur geht es mir. Ich lehne sie ja nicht pauschal ab. "Mit gesundem Verstand" ist die richtige Wahl.--XRaytalk10:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
und die Folge davon sind in vielen Fallen Bilder mit Darstellungen, wie sie in der Wirklichkeit niemand auch nur annähernd sieht. Oft ist es gut, dass wir Verzerrungen korrigieren können, die uns das Objektiv liefert, aber es darf nicht um jeden Preis entzerrt werden, wie es einige Juroren verlangen. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deutsch: "Mit gesundem Verstand" ist bekanntlich kein guter, belastbarer Ansatz, jeder, der eine Mission hat, hält nämlich seinen eigenen für den Gesunden. Fakt ist: Kleine Korrekturen lassen sich mit Tools wie ShiftN ohne nennenswerte QUalitätsverluste in 2 Minuten plus Uploadzeit erledigen. Starke Korrekturen führen in den meisten Fällen zu grotesken Darstellungen, die mit dem visuellen Eindruck vor Ort nur noch wenig zu tun haben, und sie führen obendrein durch die notwendigen Interpolationen zu anderen technischen Mängeln. Der Zwang zur Senkrechten schränkt nebenbei auch die gestalterischen Freiheiten des Fotografen ein. Völlig absurd wird es, wenn bei Bühnen-, Sport- oder anderer Actionfotografie der Vertikalismus zur Ablehnung führt. Nein, ich fange jetzt nicht auch noch mit dem Bildrauschen an...
English: It is well known, that "Use common sense" is not a good approach, anyone who has a mission, believes his own sense is healthy. Fact: Small corrections can be done with tools such as ShiftN without significant loss of quality in 2 minutes plus upload time. Strong corrections lead in most cases to grotesque representations that have nothing to do with the visual impression on the spot. On top of that the necessary interpolations lead to other technical failures. The pressure to normalisation limits also the creative freedom of the photographer. Completely absurd it is, if at a theater, at sports or other action photography the pressure to verticalisation leads to rejection.
aber es darf nicht um jeden Preis entzerrt werden, wie es einige Juroren verlangen. Damit kann ich nur einverstanden sein. Le bon sens doit triompher.--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you can't say both Jebulon! :D Either everything is straight or there is discretion. Or do I misunderstand you here? --DXR (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
100% verticals, I don't know the rework procedure.
Which version would pass as adequate perspective correction? Please do not judge the image resolution, it is a quite old photo. --Smial (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my take on it:
looks like you would expect an extreme wide angle shot from that position to look like (it's 12mm on APS-C after all). The human eye doesn't have a wide angle like this, so it makes sense to "correct" it.
is just absurd
comes very near to what I would expect the scene to look like to the human eye mind after in-brain-post-production from that position. The lower third looks about fine to me, but the tower appears to be a tiny little bit too straight. I'm obviously looking up, so the top ot the brick tower is further away from my eye than the bottom. Hence, the verticals must converge – it's physics. (Of course my brain would manipulate the picture coming from my eyes, making it look less converging, but not to the point that it is percieved as perfectly vertical.)
Sorry for late comment, it's not forgotten. Please be patient, I'm working one some words to distortion, and perspective correction. Still collecting examples - and my english is not good so I need some more time. -- Smial (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issues (lamp post and house leaning in)
Weil die Lampe (sie steht links im Schatten) "an das Haus lehnt" finde ich gut. Einfach lächerlich! Der Rest soll sonst gut sein. --Böhringer (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: I'd say that at least the lamp leaning in is due to lens distortion (here: pincushion distortion) rather than a perspective issue. Should be fixable in Capture NX under Camera & Lens Corrections (if your lens is in their database).
Deutsch: Ich würde mal mutmaßen, dass zumindest die Lampe vorwiegend aufgrund von Kissenverzeichnung und weniger aufgrund der Perspektive so aussieht. Das sollte in Capture NX leicht automatisch korrigierbar sein wenn denn für dein Objektiv ein entsprechendes Profil hinterlegt ist.
The lantern is leaning so it cannot be used as a reference an will stay leaning. I've uploaded a corrected version with near 100% correction for the building. Could not find significant distortion by the lens. -- Smial (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: I guess you're right. If it was pincushion distortion, the lamp post would probably look curved. I like your correction better than the original; don't really think it was necessary though.
Deutsch: Schätze du hast recht, bei Kissenverzerrung wäre die Lampe wohl zusätzlich gebogen. Ich finde die Korrektur besser, halte sie aber nicht unbedingt für notwendig.
Question to the regular participants here: Should I add the {{QualityImage}} to the description page myself? I hesitated to do so, because it might appear all to eager. --Tsui (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that. I've seen you have already done it adding a link to the page where the image was archived. Poco220:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This call of Cccefalon is an incredible impudence. It is remarkable what turned out to take some users here! Diese Aufforderung von Cccefalon ist eine unglaubliche Frechheit. Es ist bemerkenswert, was sich hier manche Benutzer herausnehmen! --212.88.26.21707:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, especially those users who were talking under the protection of anonymity / Genau. Insbesondere diejenigen, die ihre Feigheit hinter einer IP verstecken. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Das flooding in diesem Ausmaß geht natürlich gar nicht. Ich halte es aber für grenzwertig, daß A.Savin als am Editwar beteiligter und selbst eifriger contributor bei QIC auch gleich die Benutzersperre verhängt. Gibt es so wenige Admins hier, daß da kein anderer drüberschauen kann? -- Smial (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Na, eine Befangenheit kann man A. Savin angesichts der nahezu 100 Einsendungen und wiederholtem revertieren der gelöschten Bilder kaum unterstellen. Ausserdem hatte ich offiziell auf dem admin-Board interveniert. Ich fand es richtig, dass zeitnah reagiert wurde. Zumal der Benutzer sich auch auf doppelten Hinweis auf die QIC rules hochgradig uneinsichtig zeigte. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich unterstelle nichts, es sieht nur für Außenstehende blöd aus. Ich hätte halt einen anderen Admin angesprochen "mach mal, ist eilig!" um die Form zu wahren. -- Smial (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe auch seit einiger Zeit die Flut von Bildern, die sich kaum noch einigermaßen sachlich bewerten lässt. Warum aber wird es nicht ähnlich wie bei den Featured-Pictures-Candidates geregelt, dass jeder Benutzer nur zwei Fotos pro Woche vorstellen darf? Das wäre meines Erachtens besser und vor allem fairer, als den einen oder anderen zu vergraulen, um die Anzahl der Bewerber zu reduzieren. Ich selbst werde mich übrigens in nächster Zeit freiwillig wieder zurückhalten – auch mit Bewertungen. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Insbesondere würde ich es begrüßen, wenn Du Dich mit konspirativen Vermutungen zurückhalten würdest. Die Aussage, dass hier Leute vergrault werden, um die Anzahl der Bewerber zu reduzieren, ist unterste Schublade. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for the english rewiers: Especially I would prefer, that you stay back of spreading conspirative assumptions. The statement, that people were casted out here to reduce the amount of nominators is the lowest of the low. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Uwe, Kritik ist manchmal hart – nicht nur die Kritik an Bildern. Vielleicht solltet Ihr aber trotzdem einmal über meinen in eine Frage gekleideten Vorschlag (zweiter Satz in meinem obigen Beitrag) nachdenken und Euch über die ergänzende Bemerkung nicht allzu sehr aufregen. – Criticism can be hard – not only the criticism for photos. But perhaps you should reflect over my suggestion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QIC is not FPC. FP are the cream of the cream of our photos. With a wow. QI are photos that are following a set of rules. They are "good" photos. Not especially appealing, they can be dull sometime, but they are "good", as they are following the rules. We have a lot of "good" photos, but not a lot of FP worthy ones.
Saying that one can only nominate to pictures to QIC at a time is not a good idea. There is no real flooding by nominating 5 or 7 images per day (as long as one review the same number in the same time). But nominating 88 (eighty-eight!! achtundachtzig!!) picture in one edit is flooding.
Do you know what in my eyes flooding is? When an user nominated from the same building in almost the same view at once three photos (see here). The summit is but if that user, nominated on the same day again eight nearly identical photos of a building, has previously made five photos to select it. But no one gets upset about it. On the contrary, the images are diligently evaluated, because these user spread themselves Support. In this case, this user has already been nominated once one day six photos and even eight photos for review. Even the day before it went twice eight photos (see here and here) of the same user has nominated. „Coincidentally“ this user has also twice nominated eight photos already on 6 October (see here and here). On 5 October, he was modest, however, because he has „only“ once nominated eight and one of seven photos (see here and here). There are also other users who operate flooding and pass the buck awards. I spare to call me names. Regular users will know this themselves. It seems just about to go, which a user has standing. A user thrown for totally different motives flooding ago [2], another user will ensure even blocked (like Hatem Moushir), but other users are rewarded with awards. I can only wonder more about this self-glory and the actions of some users. It is sad that a page that should make users fun and should appreciate their contributions, could be abused in this way. Regards --Steindy (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steindy, I do not fancy the nomination habit of Jacek Halicki either. Instead of just escalating into rejecting/seeking conflict I actually just asked the user to not nominate as many almost similar candidates, and from the reply I got the impression that Jacek was open to select more critically among the users QIC candidates. However, for me it appears that nothing has changed. Personally, I just skip reviewing these floods. If other users choose to review them anyway, I guess there is not real problem, or? Regaridng Hatem Moushir, this user nominated +50 images in one batch. This is just clearly meaningless flooding, and I do not see any problems in just removing such a batch as it shows not consideration for the review effort.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Slaunger, I don't understand what you would tell me. :-(
Only this: what difference does it make if a user inexperience against the violating „rules“, while another user is deliberately ignored experience with these rules? Is the lack of knowledge a reason to block the user if the one who makes this even aware praise is donated? Regards --Steindy (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steindy. Personally, I would have handled the case with Hatem Moushir, by engaging in a discussion with him and refer him to the rule including a link, to ask him to de-flood himself. Instead, he was reverted, and then he re-reverted and also refused to even try to adhere to the guideline, and so on. Not very mellow from any of the parties. I do not think it was a good idea that A.Savin, the same user, who reverted was the person to block one day. It should have been another admin IMO. (I only noticed this now). With Jacek it is apparently so, that no-one has yet gotten so annoyed by the repetitive nominations of almost similar images, that they have cared to do anything explicitly about it, like removing them or mass-opposing them. And personally, although I get annoyed by such nominations, I just skip by them. It is my way to demonstrate that I do not approve of careless mass-nominations, and it is a way I would recommend other users to handle them. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slaunger, the thing with Hatem Moushir I will not comment further because I have my own opinion about A.Savin from personal experience. The flooding of Jacek Halicki I watch for some time and if that's even noticed anyone, then the user must be blind. And there are other users who violate the flooding. As I said, I'm watching for a long time this site and see how many users each push without critical review of the Awards to get in the expectation also consent. But I would like to mention no name and I like not get into it further, because I want to offend anyone personally. It is worthwhile in any case, what happened here, to be considered critically. Regards --Steindy (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger, Steindy I see I have to take a floor. When I started to nominate my photos to QI I ask Poco a Poco how much photos I can add in one day maximally. He told me, that statute don't define this question and you can add even 15-20 photos per day, provided that you will judge other users photos. I usually add about 16 photos per day in two sections. I don't think this is a flood, especially after comment from Slaunger on my site of discussion I'm procuring to not reproduce frames.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacek Halicki. Poco's opinion about the bar of nominations is his opinion, because indeed, there is no official rule. My own opinion is different. I think that 5 noms a day is enough, if you review carefully the same number of pics. It is impossible to review with a maximum of care more than 5 or 6 pictures a day. "Good quality" means something, not just a quick glance on a thumbnail: you have to check the picture, the file page, etc... I think the current issue in QIC is not only the bad quality or the excessive amount of nominations (it is), but the careless reviews.--Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jacek, yes I know the flooding is only valid for „others“. Here all users are equal but some are more equal. By the way: for User Hockei this is not true also (13 nominations Difflink). Regards --Steindy (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steindy, dass du mich hier negativ erwähnst ist das eine. Das andere ist aber, dass du es tust, ohne mich davon in Kenntnis zusetzen, so dass ich mich nicht verteidigen kann. Das musste ich nun erst durch einen anderen User erfahren. Ich empfinde das mehr als unhöflich. Zur Sache: Dein Vorwurf, dass ich QIC mit meinen Fotos überflute, ist schlicht weg nicht nachvollziehbar. Du nimmst zwei/drei Tage an denen ich mehrere Fotos nominiert habe und behauptest das dann einfach mal so. Tatsache ist, ich hatte in den letzten Tagen mir endlich mal Zeit nehmen können, um Fotos entwickeln und vor allem mich auch um die Artbestimmung kümmern zu können. Der Rechercheaufwand erfordert sehr oft einen unglaublichen Zeitaufwand. Wilde Tiere und Pflanzen sind eben keine Bauwerke mit einem Namensschild, das man einfach ablesen kann. Die von dir angesprochenen Fotos hatte ich nun endlich fertig und da ich sie qualitatv für gut genug halte, habe ich sie serieweise sofort nach dem Hochladen nominiert, mit all der Arbeit die dahinter steckte. Das war in der Tat manchmal an einem Tag nicht wenig. Dafür habe ich aber lange Zeit gar keine oder sehr wenig Fotos nominiert. Grob nachgerechnet habe ich im Jahr 2014 um die 140 Fotos nominiert, wahrscheinlich weniger. Bis heute hat 2014 ca. 285 Tage. Durchschnittlich waren es also ca. 0,5 Fotos pro Tag. Und das soll nun flooding sein. Dem kann ich nicht zustimmen und der Vorwurf an mich kann daher nicht gerechtfertigt sein. --Hockei (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<ebenfalls eigeschoben>Werter Hockei! Ich hatte Sie als aktuelles Beispiel zum Zeitpunkt meines Beitrags erwähnt. Wenn Sie jetzt bestreiten wollen, das meine Aussage korrekt war, so führen Sie sich selsbt ad absurdum. Der von mir angegebene Difflink spricht eine andere Sprache. 10 dieser insgesamt 13 Bilder sind selbst zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt noch in der Nominierungsliste enthalten. Also sollten Sie mit Ihren Anwürfen vorsichtiger sein. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es völlig uninteressant, wieviele Bilder sie im Jahr 2014 eingestellt haben und welchen Durchschnitt dies ergibt. Wenn ich meinen Kopf in ein Backrohr stecke und die Beine in einen Eiswürfel, dann ist mir auch nicht „durchschnittlich warm“. By the way: meinen Sie, dass andere Benutzer oder im Konkreten ich mit den Fotos weniger Arbeit haben. Ich habe erst am Sonntag beim EM-Qualifikationsspiel Österreich gegen Montenegro mehr als 1000 Fotos gemacht und ich bin noch nicht einmal annähernd damit fertig, die darauf zu sehenden Spieler zuzuordnen, geschweige denn für etwa 100 bis 150 Fotos die entsprechenden Ausschnitte und Nachbearbeitungen zu machen. Und es warten noch weitere Fußballspiele auf das gleiche Prozedere... Freundliche Grüße Steindy (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich bin einen anderen Umgangston gewöhnt. Diese Art und Weise miteinander zu reden überlasse ich den Leuten, die es wollen. Ich bleibe bei dem, was ich gesagt habe und für mich ist die Diskussion damit beendet. --Hockei (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tja, wenn die Argumente ausgehen ist das wohl besser so. Obwohl alles schön mit Difflink belegt, gehen Sie mich von der Seite an und spielen dann den Beleidigten? --Steindy (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger, Steindy, Jebulon The rule, that I can nominate only a few photos per day, should first be subjected to vote. There is no point in statute determines that. Some people takes a few photos per month, others much more and I don't see a reason to descriminate people, that takes more pictures. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jacek This rule has indeed a sense, because abide by the flooding other images unweighted because they get lost in the mass flood. It is also in the rules that the older photos to be evaluated first. And these rules are also available in Polish. Regards --Steindy (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the (unwritten?) rule, not to nominate more than a couple of pictures at once or within a few days, is also a sign of respect to those, who take the time to review the all the pictures (I rarely do so myself, because I still try to get a feeling for the criteria). There is no discrimination in asking contributors of pictures not to flood the candidate list with dozens of nominations. Someone has to look at them and all this work is done by volunteers. The only consequence of too much candidates would be that these pictures won't be reviewed and that maybe the nominations of others could be overlooked. --Tsui (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can't understand. I think that the rule about avoiding flooding is right. I just think that a dozen photos on the day of the two parts is not flooding.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a rule of x noms per day would be absurd to me. There are people here that dedicate 5 hours a week to QIC, others 1 hour, others even 15/20 hours, and therefore the time they would like to dedicate to upload, nominate and/or review. Poco220:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I was mentioned here I will drop a comment about this flooding, yes, dropping 68 pictures at once in QIC and expect that a bunch of people spend a while to judge them is disrespectful towards the reviewers and not a good strategy from the nominator point of view. What is flooding? 5, 10, 20? No clue. To me it depends on the time the nominator is ready to dedicate to review the work of others. And this is actually what I mentioned 3 comments above (Steindy, you missed that part) and what I commented to Jacek Halicki some time ago. I stick to my opinion, although I understand that some people are not amused by the fact that we are seeing nominations with the same boring subject in 6 different focal lengths from the same POV. That is not a "fun factor" for reviewers, so to say.
I don't understand the motivation of anybody to drop 68 pictures at once. I hope there is no hurry here and I can just advice to begin step by step, nominate a few, see how it goes, and depending on that decide whether nominating more is a good idea. Sometimes it even makes sense to wait for feedback and apply that feedback next time you go out with the camera. Reviewers here are not machines and time is precious, so in cases like this taking away the flood is a good way to protect QIC and to protect the nominator. A comment in the user talk page explaining why and advising how to proceed should do the rest. If the user is though not willing to hear and believes that this behavior is correct without having little knowledge about how things look here, then the story can unfortunately end up in a block. That is something to avoid and can cause the loss of valuable contributors and hassle for some reviewers. Maybe it makes sense to right a essay about how to approach this site. Will add it in my to-do list. Poco220:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soll ich die Leute anbetteln? – Je länger ich hier reinschaue, umso mehr wundere ich mich und versuche zu ergründen, wie manches negative und wie manches positive Urteil zustande kommt. Übrigens: Ein eindrucksvolles Bild von einer wahrscheinlich behinderten Amateursportlerin wegen nicht ausreichender Beschreibung abschmettern zu wollen finde ich auch nicht gut. Welche Bedeutung soll der Name des Mädels für die Qualität des Fotos haben? Gruß -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Da ich gerade die Photodokumentation von Sabah, Borneo vor Ort erweitere, bin ich nicht in der Lage, adäquat in Diskussionen mitzuwirken. Je nach Standort ist die Internetanbindung auch schlecht oder gar nicht vorhanden. Wenn das Bild als "unassessed" aus der Bewertung geflogen ist, nominiere es erneut und füge evtl, in kleiner Schrift "renominated after reworking" hinzu. Gruss aus Malaysia, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"3.Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms."
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion and voting process has ended. To summarize, we have
Now
3. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms
3.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. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
32 Support (89%)/ 1 Neutral (3%) / 3 Oppose (8%)
Conclusion
For both proposals, there is a clear consensus to replace the current rule with an updated proposal. When comparing the two update proposals, the alternative update has both more support votes and a larger percentage of support votes. It is therefore clear, that the Alternative update will replace the current formulation. Thanks to all who have spend time on discussing the proposals, vote and express their opinions in the process. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because otherwise you cannot make a correct categorization... (see your previous section above). That said, some further explanation is perhaps needed, like to the level where the picture is visually distinct from a taxanomic point of view. E.g., for many insects this will be no lower than the Genus level, whereas for wild plants it is typically at the species or sub-species level. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wellwellwell. Thanks for answer, but why is it necessary to "make a correct categorization" ? If I categorize in the category:trees, or in the category:crabs, it is not enough and the picture cannot be a QI, according to the rules ? I think we have already a consensus about that rule. Thus, "correct" categorization means "the most precise possible" or "at the better level possible", do I miss something ? Continuing the reasoning, and if I understand well the purpose of "Commons", the categorization is "a way" to achieve something, not "a goal" by itself, i.e. a good and useful identification for the user (among other reasons, but this one is the main), right ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you on the point that "the most precise practically possible" is enough. It is very difficult to identify many small subjects (like Diptera) to even family level. But it (the photograph) will be more useful if we can identify it to a species or genus level. So we must try our best, and indeed, it "is "a way" to achieve something" useful. (hope you noticed the effort by Christian Ferrer on the FP galleries.) Jee15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, if we all agree that the most precise practically identification is necessary, I have another question : why only Taxa namings for organisms are required in QIC? I mean: right now, according to the rules, a categorization in the category:cars is sufficient in QIC for this car, and a categorization in the category:coats of arms is acceptable in QIC for this CoA. Again: could someone provide me a good rationale ? Is it fair ? If not, I think we should be more precise in the rules...--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I can't comment about cars or CoAs, as they are not my area of interest/expertise. But IMHO, proper categorization for all types of works need to be appreciated. Otherwise we end up N random cars/CoAs. On the other side, binomial nomenclature is not the only way to categorize all organisms. Domesticated animal and cultivars are classified in a different way. Nature scenes like a tree/group of trees can be a QI even though its binomial name is unknown (as such a picture is useful for illustrating other topics than just a plant profile). Jee16:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
The paragraph 3 in the QIC guidelines :"3.Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." has changed in : :"3.Quality images must be categorized at the lower level possible, have a meaningful title and an accurate description. This should include for taxa naming for organisms, IMO number for ships, identification of coats of arms, model of the cars, identification elements for works of art (author, etc...) and in general all relevant precisions for any identifiable objects."--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The actual guidelines is ok an enough IMO. Exemple for this file there is one good and valid linked category. Me I think it is enough. But because there is two red linked categories the image have 2 oppose in Consensual Review. Why? it is correctly categorised. We should not oppose because there is not a linked category for the tree at right, the girl with the white tee-shirt at left, all the models of cars....This image is correctly categorized, if you want to add more categories you're free to do it. But this image is correctly categorized. Not need to ask more or it will lead to excesses for proove it is already the case, this is why I oppose this proposal. -- Christian FerrerTalk06:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to precise that one of the opposes for the promotion of the image that I quoted is yours Jebulon. And in more the two red links are not the fact of the author/nominator. I can support or at least stryke my oppose if you add to your proposal :"If the image have at least one correct linked category as described above, red links are not a reason for to decline or oppose." -- Christian FerrerTalk06:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mon opposition était motivée par la volonté de soulever un problème: je constate que la catégorisation correcte, l'identification des images, l'utilisation ultérieure par des visiteurs du site, tout le monde s'en fout, c'est la course au label. Mais le label répond à des règles, qui ne sont pas "que" photographiques. Je martèlerai ceci sans fin, je suis très motivé. Il y a d'autres sites pour charger de "jolies" photos et se regarder le nombril. "Commons", c'est autre chose, et je sais que tu es d'accord avec moi.--Jebulon (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon C'est bien, continue de faire ce que tu crois avoir à faire et moi je vais faire pareil mon ami :), je continue de croire que les red links ne sont pas un problèmes ici, cette image était déjà correctement catégorisée. Et les crétins donneurs de lesson ne sont pas mieux que ceux qui se regardent le nombril. Mais ni toi ni moi ne sommes concernés il me semble... -- Christian FerrerTalk12:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne sais pas, à qui tu t'adresse mais parlée pour moi, il n'était pas ma intention de donner des lessons. Mais à mon avis, ce n'est pas une bonne idée de classer les copains de cet portail en "crétins" et "gens nombrilisme". Je crois, qu'il fallait plus respecter la étiquette. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rules, rules, still more rules. I do not know, what an IMO number is. What if I am on vacation and take a photograph of a coat of arms at an unknown building? One of my QI shows a detail of an US oldtimer, where I could not figure out the correct model year. Someone else helped. "all relevant precisions for any identifiable objects" - hey, think of taking a pano of an old town with half a dozen churches and other relevant historical buildings. Last, not least: What is "categorized at the lower level possible"? -- Smial (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then let's be consistent, and simplify the rules:"3.Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." "Rules rules still more rules" ? Where ? When ? Who ? And of course, the "pano" argument is a bad faith argument. I just ask for consistency...--Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"What an IMO number is" ? As for myself, I'd absolutely no idea of what a "Taxa naming" was when I uploaded my first plant picture... I just learned. "Someone else helped": Excellent ! You've got the point ! That's "Commons", what I love in it, and why I'm here ! "What if I am on vacation and take a photograph of a coat of arms at an unknown building?": Sure, somebody (we have many specialists here) can help (I may, in case of need)."all relevant precisions for any identifiable objects" : your quote is not complete. I wrote "in general" first. What is "categorized at the lower level possible" ? : See my illustrated arguments above about "category:cars", or "category:coats of arms". This week, a journalist used one of my pics for the illustration of an e-article in the eldest french newspaper. It was : here. I think he could not find this (relevant) picture, if it was categorized only in the "category:barrels".--Jebulon (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose F those Latin names, who uses them anyway? It's time wikipedia came up with a category system that supports multiple languages per category. Also, forcing people to add Latin names might lead to errors. Better no category than the wrong one! --Uberprutser (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is not Wikipedia, but "Commons". You don't answer the question. I ask about minimum CATEGORIZATION. By the way:Every persons IN THE WORLD interested by biology, mineralogy, or science use Latin, and it is in this matters the only international language, understood by everybody. You don't know what you are talking about.--Jebulon (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think one of the classical mistakes have been made on Commons here. Namely to draft a proposal and immediately start a polarizing vote. For me the proper process is to draft a proposal and ask: What do you think? And try to seek a consensus. It gives better results. Regarding the proposal itself, I agree in the intention 100%, but not in the way it is stated, with all the specifics about taxa naming, IMO numbers, coat of arms, etc. The full list is actually endless, and there is not need to pick out any in particular, just as there was no reason to specifically pick out the taxa naming of living organisms. We have a nice policy Commons:Categorization, which every serious contributor here is supposed to follow. If that policy is followed as intended, all these specifics are fulfilled by themselves. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slaunger! Please have a look on the date of the start of the debate I initiated (with a few participants...), and the date of the polling proposal, which is only a subsection of the discussion above... I cannot agree with the word immediately (almost one month). As the discussion was very poor, I tried to argue, and to provide some elements, with questions one could name "what do you think?". Only after that, I draft a related proposal... Then, and only then, people reacted, and strongly, because in many cases people are excited by conflicts (even with no reasons, look, most of arguments -I mean, contra arguments, are off-topic-). That's interesting, sociologicaly speaking...--Jebulon (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well you did actually vote within the same minute you actually wrote the proposal, but nevermind. But I do acknowledge the initial discussion was not good either, so I see your point. I was actually a little confused about the objectives of the discussion at first (when i answered your question the first time), and I sort of lost touch with the discussion afterwards. Anyway, I agree entrely that there is an inconsistency in the current guideline in mentioning taxa naming, but not many other specifics. But I also think the current proposal is too bloated, and i would like to discuss how to tighten it.
Categorization: A lot of specific examples of good categorization are mentioned in the proposal. I agree the categorization shall be as precise and specific as possible. For me this can be achieved by following the policy Commons:Categorization. This is an official policy, which every scontributor shall follow, and for me it explains quite well what is expected with regard to categorization. So, of course a QI, which shall be a good example of a file on Commons shall follow this policy. Could it be considered to replace the long list of specifics in the proposal with simply a reference to this policy? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be considered to provide a list of links to, e.g., five file pages, which provide good examples and sets a baseline for what we mean by this criterion. It could an example of a living organism, a vehicle, a building, a landscape, a portrait to showcase some of the most commons classes of QIs. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know this page, it seems it has not translation in french (the link is to the french wikipedia (not "Commons") categorization policy). Anyway, this alternative proposal seems for me to be the best possible, and far much better than mine. It answers to all questions, and is the translation of an official policy.--Jebulon (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think though, if it is entirely in 'sync' with the English text, but it looks fairly updated and complete to me (Last updated May 1, 2014), although there have been some changes in the English policy page since then. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I told about the left margin (links to wikipedias). In the french version (I did not know), it is not presented as an "official policy", and sounds not as "strong" a the english one. The english one should be the reference.--Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify what you meant by "title"? Our {{Information}} has no "title"; (it lacks many other useful and vital things like "credits" too.) Do you meant "file name"? It is OK for me; tools like MV uses file name without extension as "title". But not many people think that "file name without extension" is a formal title consciously chosen by the copyright holder. "Title" is an important part and has very relevance in copyright terms. It is another area where our media-wiki tools struggles to follow industrial standards. (If I understand properly, most of the issues related to the MV was/is the failure for an automated tool to pick data properly from our poorly maintained file page.) Jee03:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I agree. I have shortened it all significantly and reintroduced meaningful as a qualifier for the file name. Now I think we could supllement this very compact revised rule with five good examples of QIs with a compliant file page to set the 'metadata bar' for QI. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too happy with the file name part because I don't think it will ever be effective. Firstly, there is a problem of language: a name written in Cantonese or Basque will be meaningless for most English speakers. Secondly, how are we to interpret the meaning of "meaningful"? Will it be all right to name a photo of an insect as "Insect_May_2_2014" or should we go to the Family level? Or to the Genus level? Or to the species level? My opinion is that this will be a source of permanent and unnecessary conflict in QIC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Yes I did, but the file naming policy is so broad that any interpretation seems possible. Some time ago someone in Commons (I can't remember whom) tried to rename my photos because the names weren't descriptive enough for his/her taste. I fear that any mention to the file name policy will open a can of worms in QIC. I will give you another example. All of my photos taken in Porto Covo (except those of biological species) are named "Porto Covo_month_year_#". Is this helpful enough? It is for me but probably not for some users, who would prefer a finer description. --- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: , Jebulon, Jkadavoor Personally, I am very fine with Alvesgaspars example of file names. I agree the word "meaningful" is loaded and just inviting for controversy even it is links to a file naming (draft) policy, which really says there aren't that many requirements, just avoid that they are directly misleading, does not contain really weird punctuation characters, is not extremely long. The file name policy also says it can be given in any language (does not have to be English, using any unicode expressable character set, latin, greek, arabic, thai script, you name it). All makes sense to me, as the main purpose of the file name is to be a unique identifier for the image. I am reluctant though to completely leave out a reference to file naming as I would rather like to avoid directly misleading filenames, like naming an image from Porto Covo as "Sesimbra_2014-09-22.jpg" or naming a photo of a Saxifraga oppositifolia plant as "Saxifraga nivalis.jpg". But I have now gotten rid of "meaningful" and replaced it with the less loaded word "valid". Is that more acceptable? And then I propose to supplement the rule by five examples of file pages, which are "good enough for QI". We can then use them as baseline or reference examples, if when we get into a quarrel of what is a "valid file name". What do you think? Let me try to find some examples and let us discuss where the bar is. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of file pages compliant to req 3 (a starting point, what do you think?):
@Jebulon: : Good point. It is hard to find other QIs made of Chinese characters, but I have replaced it with a QI from Ukraine using the Cyrillic script for both the file name and description as another example. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me the only necessary requirement for any image file name (not only in QIC) is that it should not be misleading. In an ideal world where all users read and wrote English perfectly one could be more ambitious and impose rules on the meaning. But not here, where there is no effective way of enforcing such policy in all languages. I think that @Slaunger: examples are not coherent with what he writes because those names are much more descriptive than the suggested requiremnet. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvesgaspar: : It appears we agree, but my examples just did not show sufficiently non-descriptive, yet valid file names. I have replaced the living organism example with a QI of yours, File:Beetle May 2009-2.jpg, which I think is a good example of a valid, yet not overly descriptive, file name. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of detailed taxanomic data in the file name or description. My concern is that we end up discarding images of living organisms where the specific type organism is secondary. The point of the photo is "large hairy spider on pumpkin" to illustrate an article about Halloween. Make sure the rules/guidelines allow for images like that to be accepted. If some biology major wants to come along later and add taxanomic information to the description, fine. Don't force someone to try and guess to submit an image when it isn't their area of expertise, resulting in precise, but inaccurate, data. --Generic1139 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Generic1139: I think that is a good point you are making. I also think that with the current proposed formulation, where the previous taxa requirement is not explicitly mentioned, but replaced by a reference to the categorization policy, it is easier to mitigate for such common sense cases. That said, there is no hurry in getting the QI stamp, you can start using it in a Halloween article, while you try figure out exactly what you are seeing. I agree it is important that the data are correct. Often you can obtain that by asking for help from other users. There are very often domain experts around, who are willing to help, and find that is interesting. The problem may be, that if you are not an old-timer here you may not know who to approach. Maybe it could be beneficial to accumulate a list of domain experts in a "QIC reference desk", you can help getting images ready for QIC? -- Slaunger (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fist thing to do is to precise if an english description is needeed(compulsory) or not. Exemple: Commons:Quality images candidates#File:2014_Kłodzko,_barokowa_brama_10.jpg, this image was puched in CR because there was only a polish description @Christian Ferrer: [ non, pas du tout, je me suis opposé à cette proposition parce que ni le titre de la photo, en français "klodzko, portes baroques", ni la description, ne correspondent au contenu de l'image, une statue, vraisemblablement d'un saint catholique. Un titre en polonais me va très bien. / Not at all. I opposed this nom, and followings, because nor the title of the file , in english "klodzko, baroque gates", neither the description, do not correspond to the content of the picture, a statue, probably of a catholic saint. I'm fine with a polish title.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)]. Now the author have add an english one. Me I opposed because I think there is an overexposed area, IMO it's more important but it is not the question here. The question is: yes or not, is an english description compulsory and is the absence of it a reason for to oppose or not? In first we must answer exactly to that and only after that we can discuss on the relevance of the presence of the bibliography of the architect/sculptor and of the bibliography of the sculptured subject and of the history of the gate/sculpure (construction, renovations, ...). We can write a book with many details, I already read books like that. So please at first : is an english description needeed or not for a promotion? I try to be a carefull rewiever and I want to know that in first. -- Christian FerrerTalk08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, the answer is clearly: NO. Every title in every language is good and acceptable. But both (title and description) MUST be accurate, and correspond to the picture.--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please, if it's or not compulsory, please write exactly it in the guideline for that the rewiewers have not to fight because they interpret the rule in many different way. I think the same thing for the red links categories when there are accompanied by valid categories, is it a reason to oppose or not when there is a valid category? Please if you change something in the guiseline be precise with this kind of criterias whitch make different interprets by the rewiewers. -- Christian FerrerTalk10:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: : I think it is a very good point to settle this once and for all. Personally I think, that there shall be no requirement to have an English description, as we are supposed to be a multi-national project, and if a user makes an accurate description in his native language (but does not master English), that is perfectly valid and sufficient in my opinion. On the other hand, if a user is capable of drafting an English description too that should certainly be encouraged, as it will make it easier for most reviewers to assess the file page. To address that I have now added the following detail on the proposal: "...accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.". What to you think? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding red-linked categories. IMO it is the responsibility of the nominator to make sure that red-linked categories are created. If not, a user browsing the category tree will not find the image, nor will it be found when searching for quality images at a higher intended category level. For me, a red-linked category is (almost) as bad as no category. For me it is a diva attitude to expect someone else to drop by and do the category maintenance work (which may be boring, yes). It is our common responsibility to maintain the category structure. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the actual contents of the description I see no reason to duplicate information, which is already available in wikimedia projects and/or on Wikidata. It is better to just reference such articles/sources with links to avoid maintaining redundant information. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon: I understand your point for the red links, but the fact is that there is a lot of users in Commons and a lot of them are not familiar with the QIC page or rules. Just an exemple taken on your user page: this file is more than correctly categorized, I know it is already a QI but please do as it was not yet a QI. If you nominate this image with these categories, ok no problem. But what about if an user, who you don't know and who don't say nothing to you add this red link: Category:Grilles in avenue de Friedland, is this red link depriving the relevance of yours categories? of course not. Is it a reason for to oppose? of course not, this image is correctly categorized and the red link (stupid or not) change nothing on this fact. And even after the promotion, nobody can watch if a red link is added. I already see some users oppose and fight for this inequitable reason and I think it is usefull to avoid useless fight on this topic by adding this kind of sentence in the guideline : Red linked categories are not valid reason for to oppose on condition that they are accompanied by at least one existing and relevant category. -- Christian FerrerTalk09:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to say more than that I agree. But I don't understand your point. If there is no "at least one existing and relevant category", then the picture is not "properly categorized".--Jebulon (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: . I think that you very specific proposed ammendment about redlinked categories is too specific. I only recall a few times in my 7-8 years on Commons, where "some other editor" has placed a red-linked category on one of my file pages. I recently withheld support of a nomination of Martin Kraft until the user had created a red-linked category (I kindly requested it), which I believe he had added himself and was part of a proper categorization (who said one is always enough?) . I did not oppose, I just did not support until it had been created and I think that is OK. What do you think Martin? The link to Commons:Categorization in my alternative proposal is enough IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Actually I appreciated your hint with the red-linked category, because that was just a lapse and imho every picture should be properly tagged an categorized. Especially pictures with no category at all are just useless. But I don't think a red link should be a reasen to decline a nomination. A friendly note and no support should be enough. // Martin Kraft (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the long discussion above, it appears for me, that there is now a convergence among the editors who have invested time in the discussions towards making the following adjustment of rule 3
Now
3. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms
I think it is now time to stop the discussion of the exact formulation and vote Support/Oppose for the updated rule. I propose we let the vote run for one week until 2014-10-10 0:00 UTC. If there is a majority of support, we replace rule 3 with the update, else we leave rule 3. as is.
Support I understand "valid" as in "valid for commons" which already means "meaningful". Of course, an image that doesn't meet Commons rules can't be QI. However, my support extends to a wording "meaningful" or "valid and meaningful". --MB-one (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Existing rule is sufficient IMO, but I don't have any problems with the new one either. Main point should be to use one's brain when uploading and nominating. --P e z i (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry that I did not involve myself previously into the discussion. Opppose for following reasons: 1. main reason: The examples are very irritating: What are they for? Good description? Good cats? If you just take a look on the length of descriptions the examples are so different thus only irritating and far from being helpful. 2. In recent times I see a tendency on Commons of introduction of overregulation. An increasing overall quality of photos on Commons is for me more an effect of mutal learning and interaction than of applying rules for every possible case. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I think your opinions are off topic here, and are not real arguments. Where is the contradiction between providing better descriptions and categorization, and "increasing of overall quality of photos" ? Could you please give examples of "tendency on "Commons" of introduction of overregulation" recently ? It is interesting to see that your followers "per Tuxyso" above are in general (I repeat: in general) not very careful on that matters. If the new rule is received (and it will be), they all will have a bit much more work, indeed...--Jebulon (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting image quality ? An useless image, with no accurate description, no correct categorization, IS NOT a quality image in "Commons". QI is not a beauty contest, and "Commons" is not Flickr (or any other pretty images site). --Jebulon (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing Taxa naming rule, Oppose examples as unnecessary. If more explanation is desired, we put that on a separate page (such as COM:IG) and link to it. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In genereal I support this rule because I had never done this contrary. But I hope this rule will not bring us absurd discussion in QIC about a "valid file name". A "valid file name" means for me a genreal and rough discription of the subject and the discription text itself make a little more specification but I don't want write each time an epic novel in description text. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I'm rarely around here so I missed the discussion, but as my two cents (for what is worth): I perceive this as "less ambiguity than current rules", not "more rules". We should be careful not to overcomplicate the examples, though. — YerpoEh?05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think the Valuations well, but it should be of a quality image not be dependent. So it would be a shame if this good images would not excellent. Sorry for my english. --Böhringer (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have updated the portrait example. The previous example had a description, which was a little too detailed IMO to be a good example. For instance it replicated a bit about the role of the depicted persion instead of just referring to the relevant articles with links. And due to that the description was actually also out-of-date, when it was first added as an example (until Jebulon corrected it). It said that Juan Carlos I of Spain is King of Spain. This was correct when the photo was taken, but not anymore. Such details are better maintained in the articles the file page link to. The new portrait example is more to the core of giving a short and accurate description. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some examples wouldn't hurt but rather help, otherwise the understanding of "accurate description" will be as diverse as people are Poco211:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a good version, but IMO is must have a valid file name. The accurate description will be interpreted very narrow be some reviewers. The next problems of interpretation of this rule will come. But IMO it's not good to give too much rules.--XRaytalk06:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that several people oppose the inclusion of examples, which are not essential IMO. So I propose the same wording (except for "meaningful") as above without the examples.
Now
3. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms
Updated
3.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. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
Please vote Support/Oppose for the updated rule. I propose we let the vote run for one week until 2014-10-10 0:00 UTC. If there is a majority of support, we replace rule 3 with the update, else we leave rule 3. as is.
Support - I would also like to assuage Wladyslaw and say that I agree completely with their concerns above. I don't expect filenames to be an essay, or even particularly descriptive, but there should be at least some attempt made to say what the photo is of (for instance the name of the city it was taken in, what is the subject, etc, even if very generic like "London" "Baboon"). -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Mattbuck: I agree with your idea about file names, which is why the original proposal used the term 'valid' which is not as loaded and open for interpretation as 'meaningful'. 'Valid' also better fits with the linked to policy, which also support the view you have about what is an OK file name. Moreover, one of the examples in the original proposal has indeed such a very general file name, like File:Beetle May 2009-2.jpg to set a baseline exemplifying that this is OK as well as File:Дом органной музыки Днепропетровск 1.JPG to avoid endless discussions about "what is a meaningful filename". I fear that will continue with this proposal. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good improvement. We have rules for documenting the community consensus on what makes a QI, which includes more than just the pixels on the JPG. Ingore the "rules, rules" rants. -- Colin (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Uoaei1: The taxa requirement is given through the requirement to properly categorize and apply an accurate description. It was even fleshed out in the original proposal, as it contained an example of a QI of a living organism, where this was done. With this alternative proposal it is more fuzzy as it lacks the baseline examples. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than before. But the link to meaningful file name does not completely fit. On the linked page some technical requirements are described which are interesting for geeks (some coding stuff and bit limitations during upload) but not for those who do not know how to meaningful name their files (e.g. newer Commons user). As far as I understand meaningful filenames with meaning, filenames which make sense, which are reasonable are meant here. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Tuxyso: Yes, that is why the original proposal says valid. The important point for a file name is that it is not misleading. The main point of the file name is to be a unique identifier, for me it could such have been a sequence number with no context, as long as it is not misleading, e.g., a photo of a bird, should not be called "cow.jpg" because that is misleading. I do not see a reason for requiring more from the filename than the underlying Commons policy (which we all should follow anyway). -- Slaunger (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak support I am personally OK with this proposal as well as I think that is what I do myself, but I am concerned that the continued use of the loaded word 'meaningful"' will lead to controversy. I prefer the more neutral word 'valid' in the original proposal, which was also supplemented with specific examples indicating what are considered valid file names, categorizations, and descriptions serving as a baseline of what is expected. In any case this proposal will (also) be an improvement of the current rule 3, and its brevity is plus. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "meaningful" is better than "valid" here. A file named File:2014-10-03 Yann DSC 20456.jpg is valid, as per Commons guidelines, but it is not meaningful. I think that for QI, we need to do better than the minimum. That's why a meaningful name should be required, as Mattbuck said above. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Yann: The example you give is very good at illustrating why I think "meaningful" is not a good word to use. The example file name is 'not meaningful' for you, but it is 'meaningful' for me. For me it gives a lot of meaning - tells something about the creator, the date and some sequence number. All readable certainly and not misleading and well suited as a unique identifer or lookup key, which is the main (sole?) purpose of the file name. You interprete 'meaningful' differently, I respect that, it is because the word is so loaded and open for interpretation. That said, I do not understand what is the problem of having such a file name for a QI? We can both agree that it is valid, it appear as it is in compliance with our file naming policy. Why shall QI file names follow a more strict policy, than our overall policy? It is much more important that attention is focused on the categorization and description. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Slaunger: Hi, We had this debate on the renaming proposal. This would be meaningful of it were of picture of me. Otherwise, it gives no information about the content. As the name is the primary information used by search engines (including ours) to look for files, it is important that the name gives some information about the content. And as QI intent to be better than the average or the minimum required, the name should gives that information. I would oppose a candidate with such a name, as others have down. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralSlaunger, valid or not valid? that is the question. Why meaningful is better than valid? Because a tiltle can be considered as valid for QI when it is meaningful and not the opposite. Me the exemples did not disturb me. The replacement of valid by meaningful would have been enough for that I bring my support. Maybe we did not enough discuss before the vote proposition. -- Christian FerrerTalk 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Support -- Christian FerrerTalk18:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ferrer: I am not sure I understand you entirely, but I do not think it made sense to continue the concensus-oriented discussion about the exact formulation of the updated requirement as it was dying out and only involved a relatively limited number of editors. Thus, we could not be sure anyway, that all QIC users felt this was something they could back up. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My main concern is less the titles (important nevertheless) than the categorization, which is the more interesting and the more characteristic of "Commons". My goal here is to help making good pictures (i.e. QI) useful for users. It is a pity that very good works are sometimes "just thrown" into the Great Black Hole, and definitely lost, that only for the benefit of a poor green seal, and a very very little personal glory.... The proposal is good, but some nominators in QIC should really take care, and learn now at least what a proper category combinated with an accurate description is, (even without the previous examples, which remain a reference anyway), because the new rule will need serious efforts ! .--Jebulon (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNeutral Indeed this change is IMHO an improvement but I am not 100% convinced about what each one understands under "accurate description". We'll see how it develops. Poco207:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: I agree that is a concern. That is why the original proposal contains baseline examples of valid file names, proper categorization, and accurate descriptions. You should vote on that instead then, . -- Slaunger (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not insisting on taxa brings the advantage of avoiding wrong ones. Quite a lot of species can be identified not on the grounds of images only and need an expert for doing it properly. I see no more rules, rules, rules here. --Johanning (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Проти через рядок про англійську мову. Сенс це писати якщо є COM:LP? Oppose because of the line about English. What sense to write it while COM:LP exists?--BaseSat (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@BaseSat: , I think both proposals are in full compliance with COM:LP. If one accurate description is available in any language the candidate would be compliant to rule 3 as no English description is required. Previously, there has been some confusion about this, as some reviewers had claimed that an English description was required. The reason English is still mentioned as one of the preferred languages, is from a practical perspective that perhaps about 90% of the reviewers knows English to some level, and having an English description means there will be good chances that most reviwers will be able to actually review the file page as well. If you look at the examples in the original proposal, there is a an example file mentioned to illustrate a QI of a building, File:Дом органной музыки Днепропетровск 1.JPG, where the description in given only in Ukranian. This is to indicate that a single-language non-English description is acceptable if it is not possible for the creator to also provide an English description. If you want that to be very clear I think you should support the original proposal because this proposal has this as a baseline example. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Any organism means that when you upload a picture of a famous person you need to add the taxa homo sapiens. Not really usefully if you ask me. --Uberprutser (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose mainly for the phrase "It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description". The key words are "It is preferred, but not mandatory", i.e. you may add English description or you may not. Why do we accept this phrase? It's not a rule now, it's only an recommendation. The phrase should sound like "It's required to include an English description". Otherwise, if we have a quality, precise picture with great colors, etc. but without English descriptionwe can't refuse to photo be a QI with the argument "no English description". Yes, the English is known by a lot percent of users (~70% here or even more). But there are a lot of languages which is known at least by 100 million people. Arabic, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Hindi, Chinese, Japanese (what else?). Why can't we not to use English but to use one of these languages. Anyway, QI means a quality photo and nothing else (the description isn't important), we should evaluate the technical characteristics of the image, and not having his description. If there is a description on at least one of the common languages then it's alright. Maybe ten years later, a world language will be Chinese or Spanish or even Esperanto. --Brateevsky {talk} 09:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Währen dieses Bild ohne gröβere Diskussionen als QI gewertet wurde ...
...wurde hier bei einem nahezu gleichen ewig diskutiert und kritisiert, dass die im Hintergrund befindlichen Bauwerke sich neigen und abgelehnt.
Out of the box.
100% verticals. T&S lens simulation
100% verticals, I don't know the rework procedure.
Oppose Perspective issues (lamp post and house leaning in)
Weil die Lampe (sie steht links im Schatten) "an das Haus lehnt" finde ich gut. Einfach lächerlich! Der Rest soll sonst gut sein. --Böhringer (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Support. In this case, this user has already been nominated once one day six photos and even eight photos for review. Even the day before it went twice eight photos (see here and here) of the same user has nominated. „Coincidentally“ this user has also twice nominated eight photos already on 6 October (see here and here). On 5 October, he was modest, however, because he has „only“ once nominated eight and one of seven photos (see here and here). There are also other users who operate flooding and pass the buck awards. I spare to call me names. Regular users will know this themselves. It seems just about to go, which a user has standing. A user thrown for totally different motives flooding ago [2], another user will ensure even blocked (like Hatem Moushir), but other users are rewarded with awards. I can only wonder more about this self-glory and the actions of some users. It is sad that a page that should make users fun and should appreciate their contributions, could be abused in this way. Regards --Steindy (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutral (6%) / 10 
. That said, some further explanation is perhaps needed, like to the level where the picture is visually distinct from a taxanomic point of view. E.g., for many insects this will be no lower than the Genus level, whereas for wild plants it is typically at the species or sub-species level. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
in the category:trees, or 
in the category:crabs, it is not enough and the picture cannot be a QI, according to the rules ? I think we have already a consensus about that rule. Thus, "correct" categorization means "the most precise possible" or "at the better level possible", do I miss something ? Continuing the reasoning, and if I understand well the purpose of "Commons", the categorization is "a way" to achieve something, not "a goal" by itself, i.e. a good and useful identification for the user (among other reasons, but this one is the main), right ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
this car, and a categorization in the category:coats of arms is acceptable in QIC for 
this CoA. Again: could someone provide me a good rationale ? Is it fair ? If not, I think we should be more precise in the rules...--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Here is not Wikipedia, but "Commons". You don't answer the question. I ask about minimum CATEGORIZATION. By the way:Every persons IN THE WORLD interested by biology, mineralogy, or science use Latin, and it is in this matters the only international language, understood by everybody. You don't know what you are talking about.--Jebulon (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
. I think you should agree with this.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Info I have updated the portrait example. The previous example had a description, which was a little too detailed IMO to be a good example. For instance it replicated a bit about the role of the depicted persion instead of just referring to the relevant articles with links. And due to that the description was actually also out-of-date, when it was first added as an example (until Jebulon corrected it). It said that Juan Carlos I of Spain is King of Spain. This was correct when the photo was taken, but not anymore. Such details are better maintained in the articles the file page link to. The new portrait example is more to the core of giving a short and accurate description. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Kostel_Nanebevzet%C3%AD_Panny_Marie.JPG){kind=link}
