Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 21

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 → Archive 25

QICbot issue

Looks like the bot crashed (or something) after archiving the promoted images listed at Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 13 2019. It tagged only a couple of them before it stopped editing for the day. This was raised at User_talk:Dschwen by Robert Flogaus-Faust but it doesn't look like Dschwen has edited in a week or so... — Rhododendrites talk |  02:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The QI template was added manually by the author of the first two photographs. There is no action of QICbot in the history. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged a few manually. If some people joined the effort, we could get this done quickly. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I hope that this issue is resolved. No entries on the authors' talk pages, no gallery entries on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted, though. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QICbot didn't run

The last run of the QICbot is missing. No activities of the bot today. --XRay talk 17:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

eventuell platzt ja auch dem Bot bei 8644 Einträgen in der Ergebnisliste das Elektronenhirn. --Smial (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for nominating 10 pictures on 6th April

I forgot about time changes. I won't nominate anything on 7th April. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad dog, shame on you...
Don't worry, shit happens. --Cart (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a rude change of reviewing process ?

Over the last weeks I recognise a change in the process of review and promotion/decline. So far it was the reviewers job to ask for a correction for (subjective) problems he had found in the image and the nominators to correct or answer to this request. More and more I see a rash final rating by another user before these steps were really dealed with. Furthermore same users often add futile secondary similar ratings. It might be a coincidence that some of these people use to nominate a lot of other users images (so just raising their edit count by creating naught. Honni soit qui mal y pense.) --PtrQs (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PtrQs, after a closer look at the QI candidate page I got the impression that your problem might be a single user's actions. So I do not think that there is any need for generalization, even if there were another five users who do not really know yet how things are supposed to work here. I am also just a newbie here, so I might occasionally make someone unhappy without any intention and disrespect a few written or unwritten rules. Nominating other people's images should not do any harm and trying a few new things, such as nominating logos and other very simple images, possibly just to evaluate how complex a quality image must be, doesn't hurt either (in my opinion, at least), even if these get rejected or just ignored. So why not tell the user politely about your problems with some of the votes? He should know already about the unnecessary duplicate votes. And may be you could have some photographs moved to the consensual review area if you feel that the votes are too harsh or not understandable? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of Websteralive

Hello! There are several reviews of a new user @Websteralive: (registered only 5 days ago). Sometimes reviews of other users are ignored. It looks like random reviews. What to do? --XRay [[User_talk:|talk]] 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: Yes Websteralive is beginning to be a problem. He pops in out of nowhere and goes straight to QIC and FPC. He doesn't seem to be that interested in, or have knowledge about, photography as such and his attitude is not the best. Looking at his user page with the list of images he seems intent on nominating at FPC, I'm beginning to have a sneaking suspicion that he is using this site to fuel his weed smoking fantasies or he's an old user/sock/troll just messing with us. At the moment he is blocked by Yann for using a fake user name and reported at COM:ANU. For now it's probably best to put 'Discuss' on all of the doubtful QICs he has reviewed. I have also reverted his reviews on two of the noms where he ursurped another user's review. --Cart (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've no time to check all the reviews, but I've send some to discussion. It is a shame that this kind of behaviour generates a lot of work. --XRay talk 09:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope some other people see this and help with checking the reviews too. --Cart (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay Thanks for starting this discussion. I've sent into discussion all of his promotions that I wouldn't promote myself. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content aesthetics as QI criterium

Should we really start to take the aesthetics of the image into consideration when assessing QI candidates (see Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Animal_on_a_farm_in_the_Altai_Mountains_04.jpg)? @Palauenc05 and Milseburg: --MB-one (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If "aesthetics" equals good composition, it is already a part of the QI criteria. IMO the mentioned photo falls short of that. If we discuss if QIs should be "pleasant" to look upon, that is not in the criteria. Example. We need good photos of everything. Keep in mind that anatomy articles include photos from autopsies, and we have articles like Bristol stool scale. Not pleasant, but someone has to do it. If whe are happy with photos of lamb chops, we should also be able to show how they get to the dining table. We are all different when it comes to what is normal life and what we are disgusted by. Myself, I have often lived in rural places where hunting, killing livestock, butchering pigs and sheep, gutting fish and skinning animals is a normal part of life. I am more disgusted by the things people can do to each other. --Cart (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should really talk about it and make the rules stricter or decide every dispute by CR. Although we need pictures of almost everything, we do not have to call everything well and felicitious. Certain motives require more tact in the recording and in choosing the right setting. This must also be reflected in the criteria applied. To be only technical okay isn´t always and automatically enough.--Milseburg (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that some subjects require more tact than others. Tactfulness and good composition often goes hand in hand. If you take care to compose your photo, you will often do it with more tact than just an intrusive let-it-all-hang-out snap. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, IMO the present motif is beyond any acceptable reason for QI. It may be useful for Commons (I can't imagine why though), but why should it be a QI? Why don't we leave it to the reviewer to oppose or support? The majority may decide. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Palauenc05: , this topic was brought here, because it should be discussed independently of a specific candidate image. We can't let every reviewer make up their own rules to support or oppose QICs; that's what the image guidelines are for. If some user feel, like "pleasantness" should be part of this criteria, it should be discussed and decided by the community. --MB-one (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested in the CR in question that when people are unable to stomach supporting a photo because of its subject matter, they should recuse themselves from voting - in other words, not vote on that image. I did that when there were photos of the heroic sculpture celebrating the notorious Jew-murderer, Khmelnitsky, in Kiev, if I thought they were technically good. That subject is disgusting and very dangerous, in my opinion, but in no way does that mean that it should not be well-illustrated on Commons. But I don't have to make myself vote in favor of honoring photos of it; someone else can do that. Similarly, if you can't tolerate the sight of an animal being slaughtered, avert your eyes and let others decide whether the photo is worthy of promotion. Opposing it because you don't like the subject matter is in my opinion a rather subversive act on a site like this, meant to document the world in every possible way. Of course there are exceptions based on law, whether it's a lack of FoP or something much more serious, like child pornography. But enlarging the exceptions to things that simply make people feel squeamish would grossly impoverish the site, as well as being highly unfair to photographers who simply want their photos judged to be either of quality o r not of quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another thought: If you want people to react strongly to witnessing a slaughter, letting it all "hang out" is a good thing. The photo can be used by people who want to shock people into becoming vegetarians. As someone who witnessed quite a few slaughters during my 2 years living in rural Malaysia in the 70s, I sure thought hard about whether I should stop eating meat. I haven't so far, but I think it's quite unfortunate that so many city-dwellers don't really understand in a visceral way where their hamburgers and fried chicken come from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since, the discussion has stopped. I assume, that there isn't any motion for a change of rules? --MB-one (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with Ikan Kekek. Along with that, the photo in question is one of the less horrifying pictures I've seen on animal slaughter. Should the picture perhaps be renominated? Alex of Canada (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MB-one, the rules haven't changed, but just as in jury trials, in which the suspect in British-style systems can be acquitted for no good reason if the jury so decides, a nominated file can be declined here for no good reason if that's the will of the majority. Alex of Canada, I see no good reason to renominate this file, because the majority is clearly too squeamish about actually viewing photos of slaughters and would again engage in willful nullification of the rules, and moreover, it had other issues unrelated to its subject matter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex of Canada: The image in question was declined for a genuine lack of quality and should therefore not be renominated. However, I firmly disagree with the notion, that QI nominations can be decided against QIC rules by majority vote. All votes on QIC must be rooted in the QIC rules to be counted. --MB-one (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with jury nullification on Wikis, but consensus (or in this case, majority) rules, so that's the way it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: luckily that's not the way it is: WP:DEMOCRACY applies here on Commons like in any other Wikiproject. --MB-one (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can claim anything you like, but how are you going to enforce it? The majority spoke. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is pointless to argue over technicalities, without specific a case at hand. Let's just agree to disagree? --MB-one (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pointless, but unless the admins decide to override majorities when there's no policy-based support for a vote, jury nullification rules, and that's simply the way it is. And I'm not an admin on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: What I meant is: let's have this debate, when there is a reason to have it. Until then we can keep our differing opinions. --MB-one (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --MB-one (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by 4ghrrat

Hi there, today 4ghrrat vandalised this page reviewing over a hundred images. It was such a mess that I decided to revert this page to the version before his edits. That means that edits of these users are affected:

You guys mostly reacted to 4ghrrat's edits, I hope you don't mind reverting your edits. Can you please check this and this log and make sure that I didn't delete anything you'd want to keep? I hope you alright with my kind of radical "solution". All the best, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I promote an image?

I'm not an expert in photography, but how would I promote an image if it's very obviously high quality? Alex of Canada (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex of Canada: ,
The image has to be nominated on COM:QIC by another user first. How to promote a nominated image is described in Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Evaluating_images.
Cheers,
--MB-one (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the text "Nomination" to "Promotion". Just before the }} at the end, write your review (like "Good quality") and sign by using the four tildes. When in doubt, look at the text further down and see how other users have done it. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quality image despite strong reduction of size by cutting

I was told by Ikan to open a thread here, whether nominations of strong cropped images are able to be successful. Occasion are images, showing less than 50% of the camera´s possible resolution, to fix mistakes by the fotographing. In my eyes the right frame should be choosen already by shooting the foto and cropping is similar to scaling down no proven remedy to give an image with technical issues a better appearance. In addition everybody can call a downscaled image a cut image. It is indistinguishable, whether an image was cropped and downscaled, if it´s presented strong below the camera´s possibilities. Consequently, we should require in the guidelines, that quality images should be close to the maximum resolution of the camera used. For example 60, 70, 80%. That´s to discuss. Cutting must principally be allowed, but I think it needs a limit. An image that has to be reduced by more than 50% to meet the quality standards can not be Quality image. Otherwise we could allow downsampling too and there would be no incentive any more for the owners of expensive cameras to be carefull and responsible while making fotos. --Milseburg (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Downsizing and cut images are discussed here from to time to time. It is almost impossible to tell the difference between these two versions of photos smaller than the camera's output, so discussions go on for quite a bit. Last time this was up was about a year ago, you can read that discussion here: Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 17#Is downsampling at QIC ok now?. We didn't get anywhere then and I don't think we would come to a consensus this time either, especially since we couldn't even agree on a new minimum limit for QIs in this: Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 20#Increase minimum resolution to 4K?. --Cart (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A 16:9 "wide-screen" crop is only 84% of a 2:3 photo. An 8:10 "portrait" crop is only 83% of a 2:3 photo. A 1:2 "panoramic" crop is only 75% of a 2:3 photo. A 1:1 "square" crop is only 66% of a 2:3 photo. These are all valid crops. One may also lose area by de-fishing a fisheye lens, or performing lens correction, or by "correcting" vertical perspective distortion. Using a prime lens limits framing choices and "zoom with your feet" is not optically equivalent to a zoom lens. For wildlife it may not be possible to get closer and one's zoom lens is at the limit. For fast moving subjects like aircraft in flight, one is often just happy to get the darn thing in the frame. While we want to discourage hefty downsizing, I don't think we should worry about crops or about punishing a photographer from not getting the optimal framing in their camera. If you suspect strong downsizing, ask. I would hope nobody here would dishonestly claim a heavily downsized image was in fact just a crop. -- Colin (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not easy to formulate linits that fit all conceivable motives and images. Since much has already been discussed without consensus, I assume that the isolated cases must continue to be discussed in CR. The occasion was a simple landscape photo, where usually only a small reduction of size is expected.--Milseburg (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Colin got a point here. Cropping should be allowed, as long as the result still fulfills the minimum resolution criteria. --MB-one (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to see cropping and downsizing as two different things. Downsizing is the one that "cheats" the system and should not be allowed to make an image look better than it really is, while cropping is someting that happens naturally when fixing perspective and/or removing features that were disturbing. I guess it is possible to crop too much, but in these cases I think we should go to Consensual Review and have a vote on each individual case.--Peulle (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts?

So we've got newly created accounts that obviously belong to 1 person. That person keeps coming here to vandalize this page. Sometimes the user "only" nominates images. Example of the accounts:

I think they're all connected to:

I'm not really sure now what to do, I just thought I'd be good to let other folks know. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should report this at COM:ANU not here and notify these accounts of your actions. 4ghrrat is already blocked as a Websterdead sock. You can ask a checkuser to confirm what you suspect. You are an admin, isn't this in the admin manual? We can also ask the other QIC users to double-check any nominations or reviews made by these accounts or send them to 'Discuss'. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structured data as QI criterium

Now that Structured data is finally arriving at Commons, I think it's time to discuss, how this affects the QI criteria. Should proper structured data statements and captions become a criterium? If so, when (immediately after their introduction or at a later point in time) and how (which statements/captions are mandatory, desireable; which qualifiers should be in use)? See Commons:Structured data/Development for the roadmap of new statement introductions.

Looking forward to your insights. --MB-one (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the structured data is quite controversial. In my opinion, they should not be a criterion for QIC at the present time and should not be presupposed. --Milseburg (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Milseburg Can I ask why you think it's quite controversial? Can you point me out to discussions about it? I haven't really followed much about the structured data so I don't really know. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the redundancy in the image description. I try to find the discussion again. In my opinion, a conventional description in English is enough for a QI. --Milseburg (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
imo some work should be done to merge it with categories before it's a functional feature, and the descriptions / captions are also very redundant (I voiced some concern when they were introduced). Volunteer hours are sparse and I don't think we should be doing the work of a bot to produce a quality image (/at all). --Trougnouf (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Milseburg and Trougnouf: The redundancy is temporary, as structured data will eventually replace unstructured file descriptions and categories. That's why I believe QI should be future oriented here. --MB-one (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be too forward here. As I have learned so far, the structured data is limited in scope. Since I see in the conventional image descriptions more information potential. --Milseburg (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Structured Data is just starting out and a lot of things are still very much TBD. "Proper structured data" is very much undefined right now and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I sincerely hope that Structured Data can one day completely and properly replace file description pages and Categories, but that's still far in the future. Maybe wait a bit … --El Grafo (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Milseburg and El Grafo: I agree with you about the current status, but I strongly disagree, that it would be wrong to start shaping the future now. I'm not proposing a specific rule change, that would come in effect immediately. Instead, I would like to have a discussion about how the rules should be in two to five years.
We have recently seen, what happened, when we tried to retroactively adapt our rules to a reality that already had been in effect for a while. Let's not wait again until reality overtakes us again.
--MB-one (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it would definitely be too early to assume structured data for QI now. What can be in a few years, we can not decide yet. I mean, we should wait and see what is coming really. Or do you think, we should just recommend the structured data? But as a voluntary, non-binding thing that would be pretty trivial. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is coming isn't a mystery at all. Description and depicts statement are live now. Further statements for author, license, medium and location are planned. So a possible action could be, e.g. to declare a given statement as “desirable” as soon, as the feature is live and mandatory (if applicable) say six months after its respective introduction. That would mean a caption in any language would become mandatory in June and at least one meaningful depict statement would become a mandatory requirement for QI in October 2019. Both one caption in any language and any depicts statement would desirable as of now. Please note, that this is just one example for a possible course of action. Any alternative suggestion is welcome. Cheers, --MB-one (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CR without a second vote?

I may have misunderstood something, but is it normal for a CR to be concluded without any second independent opinion? --Smial (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the fact that an image went to CR means that it already has two opinions. However, it is possible for the nominator to contest an initial decline, or for the first reviewer to send straight to CR if they would like to solicit more opinions. Then the usual CR rules kick in and if it goes stale, it will get closed regardless of the number of existing votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need your presence at Featured video candidates

We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
Dear User,
Featured video candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating your videos for the FV tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 20:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was ist die bessere Bildbeschreibung als ..

@Moroder and XRay: Was ist die bessere Bildbeschreibung als "Reichsbahndirektion Elberfeld, Döppersberg, Wuppertal"? Atamari (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jetzt viel besser früher war nur Döppersberg, Wuppertal, ein bischen wenig. Grüße aus Südtirol --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Für mich ist so eine Beschreibung für das Bild in Ordnung, die Version, die Wolfgang nennt, jedoch nicht. Eine ausreichende Kategorisierung ist noch wichtig, denn auch sie ist ein Teil der Beschreibung. Ich bin eh immer etwas sparsam, so viel wie nötig, aber nicht mehr. Ich verweise ggf. lieber auf Wikipedia als die Texte zu wiederholen. Und manchmal sind die Beschreibungen eher grob. Botanische Bezeichnungen empfinde ich zum Beispiel als Hürde. Ganz ehrlich: Ich fotografiere lieber. --XRay talk 11:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It seems we've been attacked again by some nutcase. I think it's about time QICVote should be restricted to at least auto-confirmed users, and maybe even granted subject to admin approval. Comments? Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether it is a good idea to restrict the use of the QICVote gadget (if this is what you meant to say), if edits without the gadget remain possible. This could mess up the syntax. However, permanent restriction of edit rights to autoconfirmed users would be a good idea. And admin approval before being allowed to edit the QI candidate page might be something that could be done if this is not sufficient to reduce vandalism. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but the QICVote gadget allows a malicious user to make many edits in a short time, and rollback does not seem to work on them, so they have to be corrected manually. Manual editing can't be done at a similar pace, and can be rolled back when spotted. I would not go straight for admin approval, but first restrict it to autoconfirmed users (even though one of the vandals had managed to become autoconfirmed). Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I already wondered why you did not just roll back the edits by the vandals. Then restriction of QICVote to autoconfirmed users makes perfect sense and should not cause any problems to benevolent users. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like File:កំពង់ផែសមុទ្រ.jpg was promoted by the vandal on [1], then the edit was reverted but the promotion was kept with my signature (last comment) and QIbot promoted it because it looked like it had been 2 days (it hadn't). Should the image be demoted and put back on QIC? --Trougnouf (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on what you said, yes it should. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To get your picture promoted...

...sometimes just means to mobilize the right people, even if that people are very rare visitors on Commons and previously never had crossed at QIC. --A.Savin 14:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no mobilization. And there is no need for your unfriendly behavior. Roxedl (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone votes oppose at QIC because the picture has chromatic aberrations which clearly are discouraged via Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images (row 5 " Color"), it is unfriendly behavior. If another one alleges him personally motivated voting and one more user a "Retour coach", it is friendly behavior. OK. --A.Savin 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No quality images of Houston?

I am very surprised there are no quality images of Houston (see Category:Houston). Do any project members familiar with quality image criteria see any photographs worth nominating? I'd love to see at least one quality image of this major city. -Another Believer (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating QI categories for a town, city or even a country in not an automatic function. The category has to be created by someone and the QIs gathered into the category. Most towns and cities do not have specific QI categories. One of the ways to locate such photos would be to search the galleries listed at Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places, which is a pretty tall order. There is a "button" on each category page you can click on (top right corner) to search the category for FPs, QIs or VIs, but it seldom works. --Cart (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand you can find very good photos of Houston by professional photographers (Only Commons user photos can become QI.) who have donated their work under free licences. Like Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith with File:Houston Industrial panorama and Port of Houston, Texas LCCN2011630961.tif , File:Houston, Texas LCCN2011630559.tif and File:Houston,Texas by Carol M. Highsmith.jpg. There are also the photos in Category:Lyda Hill Texas Collection of Photographs in Carol M. Highsmith's America Project in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive. Just click on the "A" as in "Aerial views Houston" and scroll forward a bit and you'll find a lot of really good Houston photos. --Cart (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Good to know re: both the QI categories and images of Houston. I've been disappointed by the inability to use the FP/QI/VI button most of the time. I appreciate the links but really my hope was to see one of more images of Houston promoted to QI status, and I was hoping Commons folks might be able to help find some strong candidates. -Another Believer (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I did some look through a few of the sub-categories of Houston. There is such a lot of photos (!) it would help to know what kind of photo you were looking for as a potential QIC. Buildings, parks, cityscape, aerial, people, transport, etc? --Cart (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Anything, really! I'm mostly interested in architecture, parks, and skylines, but I'm open to any images meeting criteria. I'd nominate some images myself but I really don't have a solid understanding of criteria or an eye for candidates. -Another Believer (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Ok, I'll see if I can scare up some noms for you. ;-) I'll ping you when/if I catch something. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: It is a bit of a needle in haystack thing with all the NASA photos (for obvious reasons) and old photos that were ok when they were taken but doesn't hold up to today's standard and size. Today I found one that could be ok: File:IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport.jpg. --Cart (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see any images promoted you believe qualify. I was just surprised there were no QIs of one of the largest cities in the U.S. -Another Believer (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I am trying to find more photos for you! There are a lot of photos of Houston but it seems about 99% of them are just not quite QIC material. There is always some parameter missing. Getting QIs always depends on there being a good photographer, preferably living in the city, with good equipment who is a Wikipedian and Commoner, that doesn't always come together. I will keep digging. --Cart (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand, and thanks again for searching for some candidates. -Another Believer (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got another one for you: File:Sam Houston Monument in Hermann Park.JPG. It wasn't perfect, but the raw material was there so I edited it . Now you have at least two possible candidates. I came across a lot of your photos. You have a very good eye, if only you had a better camera and an editing program... ;-) --Cart (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks, I'll take the compliment, but yeah mostly I take pictures just to remember/identify sites I've seen, and I always assume a lower quality image is better than no image at all. I like the Sam Houston Monument image. I'm actually working on the Hermann Park Wikipedia article currently, so good timing! When you're ready and if you believe any images meet criteria, are you willing to submit for review? I'm not very familiar with the process. -Another Believer (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder if any of User:Agsftw's other uploads might qualify. -Another Believer (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will be rather busy the rest of the week so I think you should take the two I found for you and nominate them. I have no interest in doing these noms. The process is fairly simple, if you just read the instructions at COM:QIC. After that, they will pass or fail. Just keep an eye on the page. I took a brief glance at Agsftw's photos, that was all I had the time or inclination to do right now, so I can't really say. Sorry. I am a bit occupied at FPC at the moment, and I thought I was just answering a simple question here, not signing up for a scavenger hunt. ;-) --Cart (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sorry for the inconvenience. You've been very helpful and I'll take a look at the process. Just didn't want to bite off more than I could chew by moving forward without some feedback/suggestions. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've submitted both for review. Good to know how this works! I might nominate some others soon. -Another Believer (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You could get a crash course in what to look for in a QI by reading COM:IG and COM:PT. Good luck! :-) --Cart (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, both images have already received positive feedback. Now I might get addicted to nominating potential QIs! Thanks again. -Another Believer (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it. :) The photos will be held there for a couple of days to make sure no one objects, if not they will get promoted and you will be notified on your talk page. Good luck with your other noms (no more than 5 per day!), you will probably learn a lot about advanced photography and image editing in the process. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: You can find a few QI's related to Houston with PetScan: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=9385236 --MB-one (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most of these are not of Texas, but I labeled 3 as "Quality images of Texas". It'd be nice to have a drive to add "Quality images of XXX" categories to quality images, so they aren't so hard to find. -Another Believer (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the image

does not have the QI logo but it has been selected for promotion, what is the procedure to fix this issue?

--Cvmontuy (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like a bit of malfunction from QICBot. As long as you can prove an image was promoted by pointing to the Promoted Archive, you can add the {{QualityImage}} yourself. I have fixed that for you. --Cart (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info There are a lot of photos from that run that the Bot skipped. I will tag some, but it would be great if those of you who had photos in that batch could check them. Thank you! --Cart (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please delist...

Not made by a Wikimedian, only vectorised; therefore not QI eligible Ezarateesteban 18:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think vectorization counts. By comparison, we regularly accept photographs of two-dimensional art by Commoners even though the photographer's contribution is not sufficiently original to garner copyright protection in the US. I say that any significant contribution of effort by a Wikimedian makes an image QI eligible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand that when using the QICVote several users vote "at the same time" for a (usually recent) image, but this here is a different animal. 大诺史, please, only support candidates that have not been reviewed before or that have been declined before and you believe that should be promoted (this results in candidate for the CR section). Promoting again an already promoted image does only have one effect: the bot is delayed to clean up the QIC list. Poco2 15:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: sorry about that, will take note in future. 大诺史 (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

大诺史, I think you may be confusing the QIC reviews with the voting that is done on Featured Pictures and Photo challenge. Reviewing an image at QIC is a totally different thing, you need to be an experienced photographer to know what quality markers to look for. I suggest you leave the reviews to other users until you have learned a bit more about advanced photography. --Cart (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 大诺史, Poco2 16:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization of Quality Images under COM:QI should be done at nomination

Currently promoted QIs are copied to Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted and are waiting there to be categorized under COM:QI by anybody who cares. There is a backlog of several thousand images. In my opinion this process should be changed so that the categorization is part of the nomination process. Categorizing five nominated images a day is not a big task but trying to reduce the backlog of thousands is. Apart from that there are many images that can be categorized by the photographer only. A lot of images get promoted though they have no descriptive file name and just a very basic description and categorization, sometimes only mentioning the city they were taken. Many of these images can't be categorized without wild guesswork. --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Stiasny, can you or somebody else explain why why need 2 types of categories for QI images? Once the one you mention here and the other one, and more visible and important IMHO, the categorization in cats like "Quality images of <location>", "Quality images of <subject>" and so on. Given that the first sort of categorization is needed, wouldn't it make sense to categorize one based on the other (as the second is more accurate, it could only work from cat sort 2 -> cat sort 1)? Poco2 11:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas Stiasny and Poco, technically, the subpages under COM:QI are not categories; they are galleries. They were meant to showcase the QI photos we have in the same way as the galleries under COM:FP. The FP galleries are still at a reasonable size and they are maintained by many users. The QI galleries became too big around the time there were about 10,000 QIs. There are now well over 200,000. This question has been up for debate several times. The last time was a couple of months ago. As usual, no clear decision about what to do could be made. All nominators should strive to put their QIs in the "normal" Commons category system where they at least have a chance to be found. The system with QIs is in shambles IMO. --Cart (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, thanks for the pointer, I didn't search the archives. What I wrote above has already been proposed earlier. Of course the sorting into the galleries is different from the commons categories. I just reused a word that had already been used for the process. No matter what kind of categorization is made, it should be enforced to be done before nomination. Otherwise it won't be done consistently. --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have discussed about this topic many times. From time to time I helped out with those galleries but to be honest, never really understood why. What is the purpose of those galleries? who is browsing them? what is the advantage of them versus the more detailed categories? I don't know whether those galleries are linked somewhere to have some visiblity but I just checked one of the and found out that the average daily viewers is 2. --Poco2 19:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Poco and others: The images sorted into the galleries are displayed on automatic rotation at COM:QI, the "front page" for QIs (open it for edit and you will see all the "Sample" sub-pages), the page on the Main page you get to if you click on "If you are browsing Commons for the first time, you may want to start with Featured pictures, Quality images or Valued images.". That page, COM:QI, has a couple of hundred views per day, so people do see them. The same way FPs are viewed via the Commons:Featured pictures, list. --Cart (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cart, as far as I see there is no randomization. COM:QI just shows the last few images that have been sorted into each of the slots. This provides for slowly changing content over time. I'd prefer that over a randomly changing page. But maybe this is just a matter of taste. And yes, the page gets a lot of daily views. --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas Stiasny, that is correct. Right now there is no randomization, the images displayed are sorted photos. BUT what is being discussed is to skip this since it is based on faulty gallery pages (those are a problem) and perhaps introduce a new system. One of the suggestions is to make it random. The samples on COM:QI change very slowly while we get a lot of new QIs every day, so it's a bit misleading. Originally it was meant to change photos every day as all photos were sorted, but since that system has crashed we need a new. Please read the rest of the discussion. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Cart for making that clear. Wouldn't it be though easier to show images randomly out of the categories instead of the galleries? Poco2 17:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, oh yes! Something like that is an excellent idea. In the last discussion there were users who totally wanted to give up the "gallery system" and only use the normal categories, but what to display on COM:QI instead was a problem then. While the QIs were few and things were all done by hand, the galleries and categories went hand in hand. The categories have now gone way past the galleries. Around the end of the last discussion I got the idea about having sort of the 10-20 "QI's of the day" (a version of the FP POTD) instead of the samples from galleries on the COM:QI page, or perhaps just showing the QI's promoted that day (I think the QICBot could be programmed to show and rotate "Recently promoted" on a daily basis on that page). Anything is better than the samples linked to the now faulty galleries! Thoughts? --Cart (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it is useful to double up the category structure with categories like Quality_images_of_everything. If you are looking for QIs of some kind you can search as usual and append incategory:Quality_images to the search string or maybe use catscan. Of course infinitely growing gallery pages are useless but it should be an easy task for a bot to split the galleries after 200 images and append the date or a part number to the file name and a link to the next and previous page to the gallery. --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody would search (and find) anything in such a pile of gallery pages. Though in the past I've spent many hours in splitting too big gallery pages into smaller archives, so they could be displayed at all, I would promote abandoning those gallery pages completely. Almost all participants here spend an enormous amount of time editing their photos and then presenting them on com:qi, but very few let themselves down to doing the hard work and sorting in the results, sometimes for months in the past none at all. In this respect, this gallery system is broken and should therefore be abolished altogether. --Smial (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started the same topic a few mounth ago. See Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 20#Recently promoted. But since then nothing has really happened. --Milseburg (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Milseburg, we know, your discussion is mentioned above. Perhaps this time we can get somewhere since we now have a few suggestions about what to do with the COM:QI page if the gallery samples are scrapped (see above). What is your view on that? --Cart (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would scrap the galleries and instead show a random selection of recently promoted images at COM:QI. The randomization can either be done in wikicode or by bot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 I agree with KoH in this point. --Milseburg (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll throw in a little history lesson: Back in the early days of Commons I work with another editor to try to identify 12 good images of any single/related subject uploaded and taken by contributors that could be used to make a Commons Calendar. After a month or so of manually going through every category, looking for images I came to realisation that there just wasnt anything. Its that problem that QI set out to address, the shear lack of quality images across a broad subject area that will never be featured but that was significant to overall development of Commons. The QI category structure was created to collate that, for lack of a better system at the time.
  • comment: IMHO I'm not surprised (and kind of satisfied) its got so large and awkward to maintain. Besides the by year/month categories which do serve as record of how Commons and Photography has developed over time, the other galleries could be shut down as you can find QI's easily in most if not all category trees now anyway, and theres a tool that highlights them along with FP's. Yes a random selection of recent QI images for the COM:QI page would be a good solution. Gnangarra 13:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that very useful insight/history Gnangarra. Do you know if there is a way to get the "tool that highlights them" working? 99,6% of the times you want to use it, you get stuck with it spinning on 'Connecting...' and nothing happens. That is one of the BIG problems right now. --Cart (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange because the page worked with almost 9000 entries in April. Of course it was slow, but it worked. --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible standards for macro photographs

Good enough for National Geographic, but not for us.

It seems that in order for a photograph to be considered a Quality Image, it has to be at least 2 megapixel and the entire subject must be sharply in focus (which isn't explicitly written in the criteria, but is consistently enforced in the voting). For most subjects at the ant level and smaller, these two requirements are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if you have a $5,0000 camera and macro lens, it simply isn't possible due to optics. (If you want to learn more about this read about diffraction limiting and airy disks.) The only exception is by doing focus stacking, which is only possible for subjects that will remain perfectly still.

Commons has lots of macro photos that are extremely high quality and should be recognized as such, but I'm not going to bother nominating them since I know they will be voted down due to these impossible standards. For example, we have 65 beautiful photographs by a National Geographic featured macro photographer on Commons, but none of them are close to meeting our standards. They aren't under 2 megapixel because he has a shitty camera, they're downsized because the sharpness is diffraction limited. And he would need to downsize even more if he wanted to get the entire subject in sharp focus (by tightening the aperture further to increase the DOF, which would increase diffraction softening).

If QIC wants to always have the entire subject in sharp focus, you should relax the megapixel requirement for macro images. Alternately, if you want to always enforce the megapixel requirement, you shouldn't require the entire subject to be in sharp focus for macro images. If you wanted the image at right to qualify, you would have to relax both standards. Kaldari (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped QI renominated for QI without credit (and a question about filenames while we're here)

It looks like Lolsoly cropped a picture I took, File:Mute swan cygnet pontoon in Prospect Park (80364).jpg, which is already a QI, and nominated the cropped version File:Mute swan cygnet pontoon in Prospect Park (80364) (Lolsoly).jpg for QI. It was nominated with the text "Mute swan cygnets sitting on a duckweed-covered lake in Prospect ParkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license" and subsequently promoted.

A few issues:

  1. As far as I understand, cropped versions of QIs shouldn't themselves be QIs
  2. When nominating a picture someone else took, there's a particular way to format the nomination (the "I, the copyright holder..." text doesn't help this, but I recognize this is from the [bugged] script -- I always have to remove it for every nomination).
  3. Adding one's own name to a filename for an image you did not create seems problematic to me, but I don't know if there's a policy about that.

To be clear, I don't want to go too harsh on Lolsoly, who is a new user. These are all relatively easy new user mistakes to make (the filename thing is weird, but otherwise...). Just raising them here. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are many examples of the filename/crop thing. e.g. File:Coca Cola caused death (Lolsoly).jpg, a bizarre crop of a POTY finalist by Tomascastelazo. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And some crops just look like trolling/vandalism: File:Yellow teeths, brush twice a day(Lolsoly).jpg, File:African girl thirsty for water, donate water to africa .(Lolsoly).jpg (given the original), etc. Getting into ANU territory, I know, rather than QIC. If someone wishes, feel free to cut/paste this over there. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Podzemnik left a message about this before, too. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is becoming a problem with Lolsoly who responds flippantly to requests to do the right thing on their talk page. Wrt, the cygnet photo, only one version (in this case the original/first) can be QI. I'll remove the other mark. I'll also give a warning on their talk page. --Cart (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ✓ Done I think. I have deleted all the crops, since they are not being used anywhere. Cropping a picture to a separate file should not be a self-purpose, but only if necessary (e.g. certain aspect ratio for a wikipedia list). If a crop is considered an improvement of the picture in general (e.g. cropping away part of the sky that is too much) and the photographer consents -- it should be uploaded over the original version. And file names that suggest "authorship" of the one who only did the crop are not acceptable anyway. And yes, crops never should be nominated for QI/FP in addition to the original version. Should this mass-upload of duplicates by Lolsoly continue, a block would be necessary. Thanks for raising it. --A.Savin 15:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26th

Just seen someone has deleted to nominations of the 26th. I just restored the section. Hopefully nothing is missing. --XRay talk 07:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is more wrong than the 26th. The processed nominations of QICbot are back in the list. I don't know why, QICbot removed the nominations. --XRay talk 07:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the mistake: [2] I can't repair it all. I think the already promoted images are processed again tomorrow. Some promotions of today are missing. --XRay talk 07:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again: downsized candidates

It seems to me that I am one of the few who look if the image size matches the possibilities of the camera. I always come across resistance with the reference to the 2 MP Linmit. Even less than 30% of the possible resolution for simple landscape motifs are waved through here. If only the 2MP-limmit should play a role and not the possibilities of the camera used, we should abolish the downsampling-rule. I do not mind. But either this rule applies or not. --Milseburg (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for the resolution too. ;-) 2 MP is good for cropped images like sport or wildlife. In general photograps should not be downsampled. --XRay talk 17:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Downsampled or not doesn't matter to me at QIC, my criterion for judging sharpness is that it be entirely perfect when scaled to 2 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting approach, but completely different from how I understand the rules and less demanding. Here more acordance should prevail in my eyes. I'm afraid here is arbitrariness on this point.--Milseburg (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not in every case, but similar to that "sharp enough @ 2Mpix" I'm often using "good enough to be printed in letter size" as criterion. Printig with 150dpi then results in - tadaa - slightly above 2 MPix. If you want to discourage downscaled uploads I'd suggest a completely other approach: Don't pixelpeep high resolution uploads. --Smial (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smial, I do not see that the current wording of the downsampling-rule allows your interpretation. If it is optional to apply this rule, we can abolish or at least should reformulate it. I´m open to this but against arbitrariness, if some think that an existing rule does not apply to them and make there own one. --Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the rule is simple: even if the maximum resolution of the camera is 1.99mpx, such images are ineligible since they contain less than 2mpx. That's the minimum. The most important part of the rule is that we shouldn't allow downsampling, since this would allow for the typical cheating tactic: "Oh my image isn't sharp, but I'll downsize it so it looks sharp enough, then it will be approved." Additionally, it would change the speed at which the standards move. An image taken in 2006 doesn't have to be as good as an image taken in 2016, because cameras have gotten better since then. This means that we have to evaluate images according to the standards at the time they were taken. This will never happen if we allow downsizing, because a 30mpx camera shooting in 2019 will always shoot at 2006 standards if we downsize its images to 15mpx.--Peulle (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peulle, there is a natural tendency to feel that someone who downsizes their 24MP image to 6MP and gets an easy pass is cheating compared to someone who uploads at 24MP and gets pixel-peeped over sharpness, CA, noise and other issues. But this isn't a contest to collect QIs. The real aim should be that (a) Commons QA selects images that are high quality for a wide range of purposes and (b) Commons QA encourages photographers to upload large high resolution images. Not every photograph is taken with a high-quality prime lens, stopped down two stops, on a large sensor, at base ISO, on a tripod. Non-optimal conditions or equipment can mean the maximum resolution raw file image is poor and perhaps there really is only 6MP worth of photo in it, even if shot at 24 or 36MP. In that case, I really don't mind some modest downsizing (and as noted above cropping will drop the MP real fast). What's more harmful is photographers with a perfectly decent 24MP image who only upload 2, 3, 4 MP images to Commons because that's "all that Wikipedia really needs" and keeps the larger size for themselves. We discussed before, raising the minimum, but couldn't agree on what or how to measure. I don't think anyone is happy with the 2MP threshold held over from a decade ago, and I don't agree with KoH insistence that they will assess at that very basic level. But those folks evaluating images at 24, 36 or 50MP are doing great harm -- not only causing folk to downsize but also rejecting useful pictures. I suggest review by downsizing the minimum length to 2000 or thereabouts. Anything above that is a bonus. Reward those who upload full-size with praise rather that wasting effort trying to discover cheats. Resolution is only one measure of a photograph, and one we seem to spend too much time worrying about at QI. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I don't think anyone is happy with the 2MP threshold held over from a decade ago"? When last debated, I was against a blanket rule that might penalize heavily-cropped wildlife images. Charles (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically what I'm saying is, if someone using a particular lens on a D40 is capable of passing QI, they should never be punished for using a D3200 with the same lens. I see many 24 MP DX candidates and as long as they look OK at 6 MP, I pass them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. This rule is simple and does not give you any individual leeway for any other interpretation. So make specific suggestions for phrasing to modify the rule, stand up for abolishong it, or be mindful of it, especially by reviewing a candidate. --Milseburg (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remember that this is from Commons:Image guidelines shared by both FPC and QIC, and one would expect FPC to be more strict than QIC. In practice it has never been a strict requirement; for example most of Diliff's panos are downsampled (otherwise they'd be something on the order of 30,000 x 20,000 pixels), yet garner near-unanimous support at FPC. The spirit of the guideline is to prevent loss of information, and it could very well be that when using a weak lens (e.g. a film-era ultrazoom), there is not much resolution to begin with, and it will not resolve significantly more detail when used on a 36 MP sensor than on a 12 MP sensor. In that case, I wouldn't mind if they downsampled to 12 MP to satisfy the pixel-peepers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but in fact the phrasing of the guidelines make no difference between QIC an FPC concerning downsampling except images of living people. Other exceptions aren´t mentioned, where downsampling is allowed. Current reason for my new advance was File:2019_-_Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_03.jpg among the current candidates. A great picture with FP potential. But it has been scaled down for more sharpness. This is strictly against the current version of the rules. Don´t you or anybody see any need for action for a new version of the rules? --Milseburg (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Milseburg that's a 25MP image taken on a 21MP camera. So likely stitched, cropped and perhaps downsized a bit. Ask yourself: if this photographer had instead taken a single shot on their camera, and submitted it here, we'd have only 21MP and probably softer when pixel peeping. Ok, so perhaps if they had not downsized it would be even bigger. And if they only had a 12MP camera, the image would still look just as good on your monitor, but less detail when pixel peeping. So if the 12MP image could be a QI, why are you complaining about a 25MP image. There's only so much the "rules" can do to encourage people not to downsize, and most people are not that bothered unless folk are downsizing to 4 or 6MP silliness. The "rules" can't be written to handle all cases, and if they are too prescriptive and detailed then some folk will take that as a guide to downsize all their photos or we get arguments about the thresholds rather than just trying to use common sense. Common sense tells you this is a high resolution image that is very sharp. It's a QI. If you would like the creator to submit a larger size, why don't you just ask nicely rather than saying it is needed for the rules. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I did not understand your point of view. What speaks against an adaptation of the guidelines? The example is a landscape shot and a standard case. The current rule should support promotion, but it does not. --Milseburg (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, COM:IG is not a rule. It says right there on the page: "Happy nominating, happy judging, and remember…rules can be broken." Different people can have different opinions, and while this has unfortunately led to some lack of consistency in judging QICs, it has worked very well at FPC, where the criteria are whatever voters believe them to be. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously you understand "guidline" here as a rule, that prescribes the handling of a thing, but does not contain the compulsion to adhere to it. If no one here join into the discussion also wants more reliability and less arbitrary, then that is probably generally wanted and there is no serious need to discuss about non-obligations and everybody continou doing what he wants to do. --Milseburg (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This rule has always been nonsense when it has been interpreted stubbornly. There are already several exceptions for motifs that are technically difficult to photograph, such as sports or stage photography under adverse lighting conditions. Other exceptions apply to stitching and correction of distortions of the lens or perspective used. I'd be very happy if we could phrase something there with "not excessive" or "reasonable" or "meaningful". --Smial (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish rule - The guideline against downsizing is absurd. Macro photographs are almost always downsampled or severely cropped since you can only get so much sharpness on tiny subjects due to diffraction softening. This is a limitation of light itself, not of cameras. Scanning electron microscopes were invented specifically to get around this limitation. If you want an ant to be sharply in focus at full resolution, it simply isn't physically possible for it to be 8 megapixel (i.e. not downsampled). Since the rule effectively disqualifies an entire genre of photography, it should be abolished. Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only just spotted your comments above Kaldari. I never downsample my macro photographs and the best ones are not 'severly cropped' either. You do not necessarily get quality problems with a specilaist macro lens. I do agree with you that for very small (or difficult to appraoch) animals like ants, cropping would be essential with my 100mm macro lens. Charles (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in the beginning, I do not mind if we do that. But what should we discuss then?--Milseburg (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_21&oldid=369181494"