Commons:Candidati a immagini di qualità

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 91% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
↓ Passa alle nomination ↓
Other languages:

Queste sono le candidate per essere nominate immagini di qualità. Per favore, sia chiaro: non significa che siano Immagini in vetrina. Se volete un feedback informale sulle vostre foto, chiedete ai critici fotografici.

Scopo

L'obiettivo delle immagini di qualità è incoraggiare le persone, che sono la base di Commons, i singoli utenti a produrre immagini uniche che arricchiscono questa collezione. Mentre Immagini in vetrina identifica il meglio assoluto di tutte le immagini caricate su Commons, Immagini di qualità si propone di identificare e incoraggiare lo sforzo degli utenti per fornire a Commons immagini di qualità. Inoltre, le immagini di qualità dovrebbero essere un punto di riferimento per gli altri utenti quando si spiegano i metodi per migliorare un'immagine.


Linee guida

Tutte le immagini nominate devono essere opera degli utenti di Commons.

Per i nominatori

Di seguito sono riportate le linee guida generali per le immagini di qualità; criteri più dettagliati sono disponibili su Linee guida per le immagini.

Image page requirements
  1. Stato del copyright. Tutte le immagini di qualità devono essere caricate su Commons con una licenza adeguata. I requisiti completi della licenza si trovano su Tag di copyright.
  2. Le immagini dovrebbero essere conformi a tutte le politiche e le pratiche di Commons, incluso Fotografie di persone identificabili.
  3. Le immagini di qualità devono avere un nome file significativo, essere propriamente categorizzate e avere una descrizione accurata nella pagina del file in una o più lingue. È preferibile, ma non obbligatorio, includere una descrizione in inglese.
  4. Non ci devono essere pubblicità o firme nell'immagine. Le informazioni sul copyright e sulla paternità delle immagini di qualità devono trovarsi nella pagina dell'immagine e possono essere contenute nei metadati dell'immagine, ma non devono interferire con il contenuto dell'immagine.

Creatore
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Le immagini devono essere state create da un wikimediano per poter essere considerate idonee allo status di QI. Ciò significa che le immagini provenienti, per esempio, da Flickr non sono ammissibili. (Si noti che le immagini in primo piano sono esenti da questo requisito). Le riproduzioni fotografiche di opere d'arte bidimensionali, realizzate da wikimediani, sono ammissibili (e dovrebbero essere rilasciate con licenza PD-old in base alle linee guida di Commons). Se un'immagine viene promossa nonostante non sia stata creata da un wikimediano, lo stato di QI dovrebbe essere rimosso non appena viene rilevato l'errore.


Requisiti tecnici

Criteri più dettagliati sono disponibili su linee guida per le immagini.

Risoluzione

Le immagini bitmap (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) dovrebbero avere di norma almeno 2 megapixel; i revisori possono chiedere una risoluzione maggiore per i soggetti che possono essere fotografati facilmente. Questo perché le immagini su Commons possono essere stampate, visualizzate su monitor ad altissima risoluzione o utilizzate in supporti futuri. Questa regola esclude la grafica vettoriale (SVG) o le immagini generate al computer che sono state costruite con programmi con software libero o open-source, come indicato nella descrizione dell'immagine.

Qualità dell'immagine

Le immagini digitali possono presentare diversi problemi che hanno origine nell'acquisizione e nell'elaborazione dell'immagine, come ad esempio disturbi evitabili, problemi di compressione JPEG, assenza di informazioni nelle zone d'ombra o di luce o problemi di acquisizione dei colori. Tutti questi problemi devono essere gestiti correttamente.

Composizione e illuminazione

La disposizione del soggetto all'interno dell'immagine deve contribuire all'immagine stessa. Gli oggetti in primo piano e sullo sfondo non devono distrarre. Anche l'illuminazione e la messa a fuoco contribuiscono al risultato complessivo; il soggetto deve essere nitido, ordinato e ben esposto.

Valore

L'obiettivo principale è quello di incoraggiare il contributo di immagini di qualità su Wikicommons, preziose per Wikimedia e per altri progetti.

Come votare

Basta aggiungere una riga di questo modulo in cima alla Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list sezione candidature: 

File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Nomination|Descrizione concisa  --~~~~ |}}

La descrizione non dovrebbe superare qualche parola e per favore lascia una riga vuota tra la tua nuova voce e quelle già esistenti.

Se stai candidando un'immagine di un altro wikimediano, includi il suo nome utente nella descrizione come indicato di seguito: 

File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Nomination|Descrizione concisa (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: esiste un gadget, QInominator, che rende più rapide le nomine. Aggiunge un breve link "Nomina questa immagine come QI" nella parte superiore di ogni pagina di file. Facendo clic sul link si aggiunge l'immagine all'elenco dei potenziali candidati. Una volta completato l'elenco, si può modificare l'elenco candidati. Nella parte superiore della finestra di modifica verrà visualizzata una barra verde. Facendo clic sulla barra si inseriscono tutti i potenziali candidati nella finestra di modifica.

Numero di nomination

Non possono essere aggiunte più di cinque immagini al giorno da parte di un singolo candidato.

Nota: se possibile, per ogni immagine nominata, è bene valutare almeno una delle altre candidature.

Valuta le immagini

Qualsiasi utente registrato il cui account abbia almeno 10 giorni e 50 edit, oltre all'autore e a chi ha fatto la nomination, può valutare una candidatura. Per una valutazione più semplice è possibile attivare il gadget QICvote

Nel valutare le immagini, il revisore dovrebbe attenersi alle stesse linee guida del nominatore.

Come votare

Come aggiornare lo stato

Esamina attentamente l'immagine. Aprirla alla massima risoluzione e verifica se i criteri di qualità sono soddisfatti.

  • Se decidi di promuovere la candidatura, modifica la riga corrispondente da
File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Nomination|Descrizione concisa --~~~~ |}}
File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Promotion|Descrizione concisa --Firma del candidato |Spiega perché ti piace. --~~~~}}

In altre parole, cambia il template da /Nomination a /Promotion e aggiungi la tua firma, possibilmente con un breve commento.

  • Se invece decidi di declinare la nomina, modifica la riga corrispondente da
File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Nomination|Descrizione concisa --~~~~ |}}
File:NomeDelFile.jpg|{{/Decline|Descrizione concisa --Firma del candidato |Spiega perché non ti piace. --~~~~}}

In altre parole, modifica il template da /Nomination a /Decline e aggiungi la tua firma, con l'eventuale indicazione dei criteri in base ai quali l'immagine non soddisfa i requisiti (puoi usare i termini delle sezioni delle linee guida). Se ci sono molti problemi, per favore segnalane solo 2 o 3 dei più gravi, o aggiungi problemi multipli. Quando si rifiuta una candidatura, spiega le ragioni nella pagina di discussione del nominatore – di regola, sii gentile e incoraggiante! Nel messaggio dovresti fornire una spiegazione più dettagliata della tua decisione.

Nota: Per favore, valuta prima le immagini meno recenti.

Periodo di grazia e promozione

Se non ci sono obiezioni entro un periodo di 2 giorni (esattamente 48 ore) dalla prima revisione, l'immagine viene promossa o respinta in base alla valutazione ricevuta. In caso di obiezioni, basta cambiare lo stato in Discuss e l'immagine verrà spostata nella sezione Revisione consensuale.

Come eseguire la decisione

QICbot gestisce automaticamente questa operazione 2 giorni dopo che la decisione è stata presa, e le immagini promosse vengono salvate su Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted in attesa di essere categorizzate prima del loro inserimento automatico nelle pagine Quality images più adatte.

Se credi di aver individuato un'immagine eccezionale che merita lo status di Immagine in primo piano, considera anche la possibilità di candidarla a Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (apri solo in caso di necessità)

Se promossa,

  1. Aggiungi l'immagine al gruppo o ai gruppi appropriati della pagina Immagini di qualità. L'immagine deve essere aggiunta anche nelle sottopagine associate; solo 3–4 delle immagini più recenti devono essere visualizzate nella pagina principale.
  2. Aggiungi il template {{QualityImage}} in fondo alla pagina di descrizione dell'immagine.
  3. Sposta la riga con la candidatura e la revisione dell'immagine in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives maggio 2024.
  4. Aggiungi il template {{File:NomeFile.jpg}} alla pagina di discussione dell'utente.

Se respinta,

  1. Sposta la riga con la candidatura e la revisione dell'immagine in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives maggio 2024.
  • Le immagini in attesa di revisione hanno il bordo evidenziato in blu.
  • Le immagini accettate dal revisione hanno il bordo evidenziato in verde.
  • Le immagini respinte dal revisore hanno il bordo evidenziato in rosso.

Immagini non valutate (nomina delineata in blu)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Processo di revisione consensuale

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

Come richiedere una revisione consensuale

Per richiedere una revisione consensuale, basta cambiare il /Promotion, /Decline in /Discuss e aggiungere il tuo commento immediatamente dopo la revisione. Un bot la sposterà automaticamente nella sezione revisione consensuale entro un giorno.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Regole di revisione consensuale

Vedi Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with: 

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 09:18, 30 maggio 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


May 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 2024

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I disagree Gnangarra. Coat of arms are different. Its not a reproduction imo. It is created from a Blazon. In heraldry and heraldic vexillology, a blazon is a formal description of a coat of arms, flag or similar emblem, from which the reader can reconstruct the appropriate image. Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation. --ArildV 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is this representation correct? See source here.--Peulle 09:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma_della_Contea_di_Tripoli.svg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BYD_Dolphin_(Global_version)_IMG_9517.jpg

  •  Comment The main object in this image is the vehicle being charged. The BYD and the charging station have IMHO enough space to the boundaries of the image. More space at the bottom/top would distract the viewer from the main objects. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 19:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Степная_ящерица.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg

  •  Question I'm not sure I understand. If a user makes an image of a country's flag or an organization's logo, why should that not be eligible for QI?--Peulle 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andora-Stemma.svg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg

Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smial: Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: & @Plozessor: There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., understood (mostly). However, I cannot understand that you cannot find the time to have a maximum of five images per day renamed and possibly the captions added to your description fields. Better file names would be very helpful both to improve the visibility of your files in search engines and (for me) to have them moved to the appropriate quality image galleries ("categorization" via Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted). Almost every file with a too broad file name must be right-clicked and opened to understand where it should be moved to. BTW, it also takes some time for me to upload files with the upload wizard because of the lengthy forms that should be filled in. Commons:File naming has been a proposed guideline since 2009, but it is still tagged as a proposed guideline. Apparently, there has not been sufficient consensus yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for now. This is about quality, not quantity. Inaccurate file names and rambling image descriptions are common at Scotch Mist. I thought a brief note would be enough to get him to improve this practice. I didn't think it would be that difficult to convince him. QIC is not intended to be a mass-processing operation. Hence the limit of 5 per day. Less is also possible. For QI you can expect more effort in choosing the file name and formulating the image description than any automatic processes. Or you can forego the candidacy.--Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Milseburg: Sorry, my mistake, I thought QI was primarily about the quality of the image and that while indexing information is of course important, it is secondary and therefore it should not be critical whether that information is contained in the File Name, the Caption, the Description and\or the Categories (each of which, or a combination, could potentially be used to aid in moving images to appropriate QI galleries). If the Caption contains information that you consider must also be contained in the File Name and\or Description, then clearly the Caption serves no purpose in this regard, but before I amend the Descriptions, and possibly the File Names, of already nominated images and hundreds of images I had intended to nominate for QI in the future, can you or @Robert Flogaus-Faust: please explain to me when I should enter information in the Caption and what form that information should take?? (PS I would respectfully suggest that my descriptions are not "rambling" and while it is understood that some background information to provide historical context to places visited may not have interest to many, there are some people who have apparently found this information and associated web links helpful!) --Scotch Mist 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, these formalities play a role in a quality image in addition to the technical criteria. In this case, I would suggest the title: "Sigismund's Column and Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw" and the description "Tops of Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle Tower in Warsaw", possibly linked. You should proceed in the same way for further nominations. In the short file descrirption of structured data it's already done but should also done in the summary. Your current approach does not meet QI standards. If adjusting is too time-consuming, simply nominate fewer images. In fact, I think it's less work to reduce title and description to the essentials. Remember that people interested in the images just want to be informed about the content of the images and do not want to go on a long educational journey. The place for that is somewhere else. No such a big thing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks! I could accept this description. However, there should be also a rename request to something like File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden.jpg or possibly File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture.jpg, for example. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Thanks! Could you also have the image renamed, please? Or possibly allow me to file a rename request, e.g. to File:Łódź_2023_13_Poznański_Palace.jpg? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new version has been uploaded, however the CAs are still visible, and the colors wrong. See for example the jacket of the lady at the left making a selfie, it is partly pink and partly grey. Very odd. Due to the contrejour, it is likely that the sliders have been pushed too far in post-treatment. Unfortunately with moving subjects, you can't proceed HDR. There are also heavy distorsions on both sides, and a distracting object looking like a plastic bag at the left -- Basile Morin 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable ( 8° giorno dopo la nomina)

  • 22 mer mag → 30 gio mag
  • 23 gio mag → 31 ven mag
  • 24 ven mag → 01 sab giu
  • 25 sab mag → 02 dom giu
  • 26 dom mag → 03 lun giu
  • 27 lun mag → 04 mar giu
  • 28 mar mag → 05 mer giu
  • 29 mer mag → 06 gio giu
  • 30 gio mag → 07 ven giu
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/it&oldid=874921419"