Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 25

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 → Archive 30

What should it mean?

Commonists -- by now 27 uploads on Commons, and already four different cameras used -- Nikon D750, Nikon D7200, Sony A7RIII, Sony A7RIV. What is that: all images stolen from somewhere and not own work, or is this Livio uploading own images with faked EXIF, or someone with a collection of cameras by various manufacturers? --A.Savin 22:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Why would they be stolen images? Let me know if you find my images anywhere. Who's Livio? I'm a photographer, I've switched from Nikon to Sony, is that a problem? However, every good photographer always has two cameras with him, or at least I do. Making accusations like that seems hysterical to me, honestly. I honestly don't understand what's bothering you.--Commonists 11:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, this is my camera, 7 days old. --Commonists 11:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Commonists: Please understand that we already had much trouble with people uploading “stolen” photos (photos made by other people) under their own name, and more than once these swindlers were discovered because they mixed photos from many different cameras. Therefore A.Savin’s care is understandable and reasonable. – If you would upload the two “evidence photos” of your latest camera in full size and with full EXIF data, i.e. unedited OOC JPEG files, they would become even more credible; leaving out EXIF data can be misunderstood in this case ;–). No offence and all the best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing is quite sure: I own and use a Sony A7RIII, but if I was not able to exploit its technical potential nearly completely, I would not even think of replacing it by an A7RIV (and in fact I don't, so far). Regarding possible puppetry, we already had a discussion on this account (@Smial: as topicstarter), and IMO not much has changed on their credibility since then. As for me, you earn credibility with good photos and fair reviews; surely not with mediocre photos (no matter how good camera taken with) and revenge votes. --A.Savin 11:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas: Where did I hide the exif data? Can you send me an example? Thanks --Commonists 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Commonists: No offence – I was just talking about the two little photos of your A7RIV on this page. Both do not contain any EXIF data and seem to be scaled down. I just wanted to help in the discussion by suggesting that if somebody wants to proof anything with some photos, it would be good to upload these photos unchanged, probably best just to upload the unedited out-of-camera JPEG files. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas: But I took those with my mobile phone, the exif data are on the other photos like these. Thank you.[1]--Commonists 16:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some it's technical potential, for others it's economic situation, if that's your best I'd ask myself some questions. Besides unlike you I'm here to pass the time. I'm not here for conspiracy theories about votes or to put up my best photos, I sell those.... you know I'm a photographer. You also voted against mine but I didn't cry. --Commonists 16:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not a Free Knowledge enthusiast? I see. --A.Savin 18:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions about notifications: QICbot and QIC

Notifications at QIC

I brought this up before, but it was archived before there was a response. Does anyone know why signatures are replaced before saving at QIC? Doing so removes the possibility of a ping being successful. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications from QICbot

When QICbot leaves a message for a user about a QI promotion, it includes the review. This means the reviewer receives a ping to that user's talk page. For people who review a lot of QICs, this must generate tons of notifications. Does anyone want these notifications? Would anyone object to requesting the bot substitute {{Noping}} instead? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How come? I review a lot, but never received pings from QICbot's notifications. --A.Savin 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Is it possible you have QICbot muted? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. But if there were those pings, I would mute it. --A.Savin 20:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I don't review a lot - just from time to time. While I ignore most of these pings (and I am good at ignoring selectively), there are some images where I am actually thankful to learn that they made it through the process successfully after I supported them. I guess the ideal solution would be an opt-in or opt-out. However, I am aware that ideal solutions are not always possible. --Kritzolina (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If people like it, that's fine. I can always just mute it myself (the downside is I think that would mean I wouldn't get the new message notification on my own talk page, which isn't ideal).
Pinging a few high-volume reviewers that come to mind: @Ikan Kekek, Ermell, and Johann Jaritz: — Rhododendrites talk |  15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing ping: @Ikan Kekek: — Rhododendrites talk |  15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind getting the notifications. I wouldn't care greatly if I no longer got them, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as another point of view: I have to confess that I actually like these notifications – they give me some kind of feedback and confirm that the bot works. If I have made some reviews but the notifications stay out, I know that the bot is sleeping and can ping the maintainer. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization changes for Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted

Trying to categorize recently promoted QIs I see several frequent problems with taxonomy:

  • Photos of religious items of non-architecture nature and many of them are not also "Works of art"
  • Castles are not necessarily "Feudal", some of them were built in XVIII century, and many were several times rebuilt; we also have lots of non-castle fortification photos (e. g. city walls or ancient towers)
  • Palaces are not necessarily "Feudal", palaces were built from ancient Egypt and there are palaces built nowadays; the difference between palace and mansion in some cases is rather vague
  • In many cases even using Google Maps or Yandex Maps we cannot identify a house as "Residential Building" or "Public Building"

I propose to improve the taxonomy:

  • Add “Subject/Objects/Religious”
  • Split “Subject/Architecture/Feudal (Castles, Palaces)” into “Subject/Architecture/Fortifications (Castles, City Walls, etc.)” and “Subject/Architecture/Palaces and Mansions”
  • Add “Subject/Architecture/Houses”

To my regret I do not know how much effort it takes to make these changes. --LexKurochkin (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I agree. I also suggest the addition of a category "Plant Life/Algae". There have been some images of algae that were not microscopic. I put them into the category "Plant Life/Foliage etc", which is not really great. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Looks good to me. Before voting, I'd like to see if there are any objections people could think of. For religious objects, you're thinking of what exactly? There's a lot of overlap between religious and art objects. For example, reliquary cases are often quite ornately decorated. Torah scrolls and Seder plates can be, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I frequently categorize these as "works of art". However, this is not usually the primary purpose of reliquary cases, Torah scrolls etc. Or, just for example, Buddhist prayer wheels. Nevertheless, the issue with the religious objects is not as bad as the problem with categorization of buildings. Sometimes I find something on the web about how a building is used. But this takes a lot of time and I am not always successful. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Sorry, @Ikan Kekek: I did not notice your question on time. Yes, I think about the objects mentioned by Robert Flogaus-Faust and agree with his answer. Usually we see religious items like crucifixes, baptismal fonts, menorahs. Sometimes we can categorize them as works of art, but in many cases it would be obvious exaggeration. And yes, I agree with @Robert Flogaus-Faust: that houses are more problematic and definitely it is the most time consuming category. --LexKurochkin (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have a bold suggestion: Get rid of galleries altogether. No one ever browses QI galleries anyways (unlike FP galleries), and there are often so many images on one page that it breaks down entirely. Categorization should be sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. --A.Savin 08:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. In general the gallery pages on Commons are often heavily outdated and incomplete, and therefore they are very misleading – people stumble over them, assume that the galleries are complete and up-to-date, and hence miss all the newer photos which are often much better that the old ones listed in the galleries. Therefore I would welcome if we would get rid of galleries altogether and therefore also of the QI galleries. --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose The changing images on Commons:Quality Images shows some (changing) samples of various subjects of quality images which are nice at least for newcomers. The lag time in categorization has strongly decreased since Lex Kurochkin and (sometimes) I have reduced the numbers of uncategorized images to almost zero. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to confirm the selected choice

For a few days now, the confirmation button no longer works. Is this only the case for me?--Ermell (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New QICvote version

Dear friend, I have been working on a new version of the gadget to facilitate the review of images in this section. I am going to ask for your help to get this gadget tested, some improvements include:

  • Improved user interface, now it is possible to see a cleaner bar and a more modern revision message
  • Several validations were added, among them, it is no longer possible to leave a revision blank and if the user clicks on cancel, the entire process is canceled (previously it added a blank comment)

To test the new functionality, they must do the following steps:

  1. Disable the gadget QICvote in the section of your user: Preferences -> Gadgets -> Tools for subprojects
  2. Add the plugin to your custom script page (Special:MyPage/common.js) adding the line on top:

importScript('User:Wilfredor/QICvote.js');

After the testing period of a week, the plugin will go to the official section of Commons gadgets, I am open to any suggestions or corrections. Thanks a lot --Wilfredor (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testing notes from Rhododendrites

Creating a subsection, since I'll probably edit it several times. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on this. Testing now. I'll add observations here as I come across them. First, here it adds underscores to filenames. Is this intentional? — Rhododendrites talk |  22:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technical problem with the mediawiki API, it always returns the file names with underscores, at the moment, I think that it is not something I can solve --Wilfredor (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one comment and one promotion (to two candidates). After the second, the bar at the bottom said I only had one pending review. After clicking "confirm reviews" it has been stuck on "Sending reviews..." and has not saved. I've tried a few things: clicking "confirm reviews" again, adding another comment and then clicking "confirm reviews", etc. but still stuck on "Sending reviews" and none have saved. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refreshed and tried to redo the reviews separately. The first one, a comment, was successful. The other, a promotion, still hands. I thought it might be because I included a smiley :) but when I removed it it still didn't save. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inconsistent when the toolbar indicates there are pending reviews. Both of these times, when I added them it didn't say anything. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a review, if you switch back to "..." and take another action, it adds a second comment. It would be nice to instead have an option to edit the existing comment/promotion/decline. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: You are welcome, I think that your observations are fixed now, please, could you take another look? thanks again. Editing a previous comment can be something that this one for the future since it has an additional complexity --Wilfredor (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've used it a few times since then with no issue. A minor thing: it might be useful to have the notification that the edits were saved moved to be closer to the toolbar. In at least one case I didn't notice that it had been saved because I was looking in the opposite corner of the screen. I'll follow up again in a couple days after using it a bit more. — Rhododendrites talk |  18:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Thanks for the sugestion --Wilfredor (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed another thing. When edit conflicting with another reviewer, it adds the comment below the previous reviewer but seems to override the status of the nomination with whatever the second person said. Sometimes that makes sense (changing Promotion to Discuss, changing a Comment to Promotion, etc.), but other times it doesn't (changing Promotion or Decline to anything other than Discuss). Having some sort of pop-up to alert the second reviewer before (or even after) saving would be useful, but that may be quite complicated to implement. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about this matter to implement it in a future version. Many people editing on the same nomination brings many technical difficulties to correct. I have to think how to do this in a generic way and not tied to the current code. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Testing notes from Aristeas

  • First, thank you very much, Wilfredor, for working on the QICvote code!
  • My first impressions are similar to what Rhododendrites has already mentioned, so thank you too!
  • Now let’s see if I will stumble over any other issues … --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the addition of underscores to filenames: the old version did that, too. Is there a technical reason, are these underscores necessary for something? If yes, we must keep it, but if no, it would be nice to get rid of the addition of underscores. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did some reviewing work just the same way as with the old version and the new version worked nicely; I did not face any hangs etc. (But I often had hangs with the old version, in an unexplainable way: sometimes every review did hang, sometimes some, sometimes none. There must be some reasons why the old version sometimes hangs and sometimes not, and probably the new version still has these characteristics, so there is no contradiction between Rhododendrites’ and my experiences. We need to find out when the old/new version hangs, but I have no clue …) --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas: Thanks for your feedback, please try to put the steps you did to make it hang or crash. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Thank you! I would like to do that, but I cannot find a way to reproduce it. With the old version, the hang happened sometimes just when doing a single review and clicking “Save”. Today with the new version, I did not get it a single time, so maybe you have fixed the issue by the way – that would be great. I will just try to do more reviews with your new version (I hope tomorrow), and if it hangs etc., I will immediately report here under which circumstances it did. Thank you again, --Aristeas (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much mate Aristeas --Wilfredor (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wilfredor: Update: I have done some further reviews and tried also to cancel the review etc.; I have faced no hangs etc., everything worked as expected and also somewhat smoother than with the old version. So the new version is a real progress, thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aristeas for take the time to test it, I will wait the Rhododendrites feedback. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this problem, not idea what happened when I asked the change. --Wilfredor (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last step

I have requested changes to QICvote, at some point some interface administrator will make the change. From here on, we just have to wait --Wilfredor (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

I've seen the new tool today first time. Thank you for the modifications! Two points: The "Confirm bar" is shown in edit mode too and the new version is a little bit difficult if used on a smartphone browser. --XRay 💬 07:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, something is strange. During the ‘beta’ phase the new version has worked fine for me. Now I have removed the link from my common.js page again and re-activated the gadged in my preferences. The QIC page looks normal, with the new layout of the QICVoter toolbar at the bottom. I can also select any of the options (‘Promote’, ‘Decline’ … etc.) from the pop-up menu shown below each entry. But then – nothing happens, the dialog field which prompts me to enter a message does not appear, and clicking on ‘Confirm reviews’ does nothing. – I have tried the same on another computer where I did not activate the ‘beta’ version. But the result is the same – the tool does not work for me anymore. Both tests done with Firefox, newest version, on macOS and Linux Mint. --Aristeas (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rollbacked it just to have more time to fix it. No idea, the code is the same --Wilfredor (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone else encounter the same problem? If no, we can forget it, I can also do reviews manually. But I wonder what is going on … Will try it with some other browsers and on more machines. --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Wow – now it works again, on the same machine on which I encountered the problem first. I did not change anything. Did you change anything in code? I will try to do further tests in the next days, maybe I can find some steps to reproduce the problem. But at least for now it seems gone. I am sorry for the confusion (I am confused myself: such problems which cannot be reproduced by some easy steps and vanish again are always the hardest one ;–). All the best to you and happy holidays --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it doesn't work... Tournasol7 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but it is difficult to get an interface administrator to edit the gadget, my user space script works, so you can use it if you want to continue working as before just follow the steps here. --Wilfredor (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error message presented by Firefox

When I

  • load the QIC page
  • open the “Developer tools” pane of Firefox 87.0
  • click on the pop-up menu below of any QIC candidate
  • select “Promote”,

the log in the “Developer tools” pane of Firefox shows the following error: 

 Uncaught TypeError: OO.ui.prompt is not a function
   jQuery 4
       _onChangeVote
       <anonymous>
       dispatch
       handle
   load.php:213:529
   jQuery 4
       _onChangeVote
       <anonym>
       dispatch
       handle
   receiveMessage resource://gre/actors/SelectChild.jsm:271
   receiveMessage resource://gre/actors/SelectChild.jsm:471

Does this help a little bit? It seems to explain why I do not see the prompt to enter the promotion message. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked to correct this, however, it is the time of the interface administrators. The problem is that the test environment is different from the gadget environment. This error is because OO has not been loaded yet (something that in the user script is not necessary) in the gadget it is necessary to specify a configuration file. Thanks Aristeas for your help --Wilfredor (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, Wilfredor. That difference between the environments explains the problem … (even for a non-expert like me). --Aristeas (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aristeas I'm very sorry for the problems my dear --Wilfredor (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfredor No problem! At the moment I got much other things to do, so I can easily pause with with QI reviews. Indeed I am very thankfull that you have taken the time to improve the QICvoter gadget further! All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: And now it seems to work perfectly fine! It is really a big improvement over the previous version. Thank you again! --Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear that, and it's all the pay I need to get this job done. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Reminder

Please justify your vote at CR at least with a short comment. Just "pro" or "contra" is fine for FPC, but it doesn't help anyone here on QIC. A little effort should be put into helping others to improve their images. At least an "I agree with the previous reviewer(s)" should be possible, both as an appreciation for the photographer in question and for others who take more trouble to give detailed reasons for their judgement. --Smial (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]

Unknown QI images

I just tried to search for insource:/Quality (images (of|from|in)|black and white|night shots)/ -incategory:"Quality images". I found 2.104 images. They are in QI (sub) categories, but not in Quality images. I think, they aren't QI images. What to do? Remove the wrong QI categories? --XRay 💬 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently added by you. --A.Savin 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Psst. That was the reason for searching. I've made a mistake and I'll fix it. But the first images I've found weren't added by my mistake. --XRay 💬 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody contradicts, I remove the pictures from the QI categories. --XRay 💬 16:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just tested ... Removing is possible by batch task (VisualFileChange). I'll remove this:
  • Search: insource:/Quality (images (of|from|in)|black and white|night shots)/ -incategory:"Quality images"
  • Replace (by nothing): /\[\[Category:Quality (images (of|from|in)|black and white|night shots)[^\[\]\:]*\]\]\s*/g
  • Preserve: /(\[\[Category:Quality [^\[\]]* by [^\[\]]*\]\])/
  • Summary: rm qi cat (never nominated as qi) - see COM:QI
--XRay 💬 05:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done All categories fixed. --XRay 💬 07:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon etc.

What I've always asked myself: Why is it repeatedly asked to precisely identify plants and animals? Why not for cars? Manufacturer, model, equipment line? Why not for bicycles? Manufacturer, model, type? Why not for buildings? Roof shape, material, shape? Why not for streets? Material, classification, number of lanes? --XRay 💬 07:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valid question. What do you think the guidelines should be on all of these? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think every subject should be described in the best way. The taxon is sometimes too much, some really good picture have no chance because of a detailed taxon. On the other hand some objects (buildings, architectural elements, vehicles, ...) aren't described good enough. A reasonable amount would be good. --XRay 💬 05:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're in agreement. So how should we determine what a reasonable amount is? There's the rub. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not every photographer is an expert on every insect and every little flower. Especially in the case of beetles, even studied biologists are completely overwhelmed in the vast majority of cases, especially since some species cannot be determined at all from a single photo, since they occasionally differ only in certain characteristics, such as the mouthparts or the sex organs. Therefore, I think that the requirement to always specify the exact species of plants and animals is very exaggerated. Stating the genus or at least the family or subfamily should be sufficient for QIC if one does not know the exact species. Of course, an indication like "insect on flower" is usually not sufficient. --Smial (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) Ps: "House in Quebec city" is far too inaccurate as a single description for a building. --Smial (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"House in Quebec City" is fine as a description as long as GPS coordinates are provided. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of "house in Quebec city" came up because the nominator declined to add geocoordinates for privacy reasons. I think that's ok. The QI is of a house in Quebec City; it's not notable for being a particular house such that we must pinpoint where it is. If geocoords were required and it were my nomination, I'd probably just pin in the middle of Quebec City and add a prec=10000 parameter to it, I guess? — Rhododendrites talk |  02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know {{Location rounded}}? --XRay 💬 09:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do now! Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I added a location rounded information --Wilfredor (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tardy promotion by QICbot

The image "Indonesian gado gado" in Quality_images_candidates#April_28,_2021 has been awaiting Promotion since 19:32, 1 May 2021. Other images recommended for Promotion much later have been Promoted. E.g. File:Raghu Juvenile Camp Elephant Bathing Trunk Theppakadu Mudumalai Mar21 A7C 00629.jpg recommended at 18:38, 6 May 2021 was Promoted today. I'm wondering why Gado-gado has been overlooked by QICbot? --Tagooty (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's because your nomination iswas wrong. I fixed File:Gado_Gado_PTG_Gourmet_IITMandi_Nov17_D72_3256.jpg|thumb|... to File:Gado_Gado_PTG_Gourmet_IITMandi_Nov17_D72_3256.jpg|... (without |thumb). Please pay attention to the syntax when making your nomination. --XRay 💬 08:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay:  Thank you. Mistake noted. --Tagooty (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Another mistake often occurs: || instead of |. So you are not the only one. --XRay 💬 08:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over the use of "Discuss"

It often happens that a reviewer or even a nominator thinks that if there's any kind of discussion of a nomination, even without a single vote, the status of the nomination should be changed to "Discuss", leading to completely unnecessary voting at Consensual Review. I know there's very strong inertia on this site (as witness the totally dismissive response to my suggestion to correct the incorrect grammar of this page to "Quality image candidates" a while back), but can we put our heads together to try to figure out a much more understandable way to deal with (a) mere discussions and (b) appeals for additional votes? (I'd also suggest want to change the name of "Consensual Review" to something more descriptive, but let's deal with the more important thing first, if we even do). I'll suggest changing the "Discuss" status to "Break Deadlock". It might not always be accurate (after all, nominators can't vote on their nominations), but at least it won't lead to confusion about what "Discussion" really means, which is not actually every kind of discussion that could be had about a photo... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say "break deadlock" supposes advanced knowledge in English and does not describe, what really happens after clicking on this button. We need something simple and descriptive. As a suggestion "Ask for voting". And, yes, I support the idea. --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you. How about "More votes" as a change in status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there someplace to post a link to this discussion and try to encourage more comments? We have a page called "Requests for comment" on Wikivoyage, and people also look in our equivalent of the Village pump (called the Travellers' pub). Do people follow any such pages on this site? We'll never produce a change with the agreement of only two people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, inertia of non-participation, as usual... Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my thoughts that I would also support the change to something like "More votes" - "break deadlock" might indeed be difficult for contributors with English as a second, third or fourth language. But overall the change would bring more clarity. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anyone else for "More votes" as the status to send a nomination to Consensual Review, rather than the easily and often misunderstood "Discuss"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add clarity but without language complexity, how about "Ask for Consensus Review" or "Request Consensus Review". The intent is a clear separation from the other three options. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that but I think it's too much to type. "Request consensus" is OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LexKurochkin, Kritzolina and GRDN711, would you like to vote on possible statuses or discuss this further below? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yes, thank you Ikan Kekek --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Possible statuses

I think we should probably take a vote.

1. "More votes" 2. "Request consensus" 3. "Discuss"

  • To be clear, these are 3 options discussed above. If your first choice is different from mine, please write it below under "1st choice votes", for example, and feel free to add another choice. I hope the way this is laid out isn't misleading. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1st-choice votes

  • More votes
--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
-- Nefronus (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Kritzolina (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--LexKurochkin (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request consensus
--Aristeas (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2nd-choice votes

  • Request consensus
Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
--Kritzolina (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More votes
--Aristeas (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3rd-choice votes

Further discussion

  • I'm not entirely sure what sorts of problems arise from the present ambiguity? I feel like I only ever really see /Discuss when people want additional opinions, but I don't have a problem if people also want to move longer back-and-forth discussions there, too. The way we format the QIC page means that anything more than a brief transaction takes up a lot of vertical space unless it's moved to the bottom, and threads within the nominations are easily missed by others. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it very easy to see discussions that aren't at the bottom of the page, and I don't think Consensual Review is about anything except disagreements about voting, with maybe a referral for a second opinion in exceptional cases. But it's quite routine for people, especially new users, to think that the simplest type of discussion requires a change of status to "Discuss", and for completely understandable reasons - because of the literal meaning of "discuss" and the fact that most people don't read a bunch of dense text instructions at the top of a page before nominating a photo, but at most skip through those and pay attention to only the parts that they clearly have to know about to be able to nominate anything. I would suggest, if we want discussions that aren't about disagreements about voting to go somewhere other than the original location of the nomination, we should create another section for that, because as it is, I think a lot of time is wasted on unnecessary votes and discussions that don't require a second opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For examples of the unnecessary use of Consensual Review, look at the 2nd nomination there at this link, the 1st here. I guess you'd reply that two examples are not many, but it adds up over time. But my bigger frustration is that the simplest, most obvious changes, like a grammar correction of this page to "Quality image candidates", are either ignored when proposed or rejected outright. That idea was nixed when I proposed it, because nobody wanted to change the links, even though I think I volunteered to do so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO “Request consensus” is even more unambiguous than “More votes”, this is why “Request consensus” is my first choice. But I agree that on the other hand “More votes” is shorter and simpler, so I am also fine if the majority prefers “More votes”. --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No EXIF

User Charlesjsharp opposed an image on the grounds that it's 'too small - and where's the EXIF?' The image isn't mine, but I totally agree with photographers who want to keep their personal data confidential ie where the user was at a certain date as well as what cameras they carry in the boot of their car or backpack. I too delete all my EXIFs when publishing on open websites like this, as the data contain my personal information, and I'm surprised that exposing personal data is a criteria for QI. Monsyn (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is below 2MP so it is ineligible Monsyn. EXIF is not persoanl detail, it allows users to see camera used and seetings. We cannot tell if this is a computer-generated image, one that had been downsized/downsampled, maipulated, in breach of copyright or whatever - see Commons:Exif.
Thanks for your quick response. I think there are two separate issues here (if issues, indeed!) First of all the size - I'll ask him to upload a higher quality image. Secondly, the EXIF does contain when (what time, date etc), and which camera - just read the link you gave me! I'm sure you would agree that the EXIF does contain these three elements. I (and others) have a right not to place this information in public. I ask again, please quote where does Commons state that EXIF data is a criteria for QI. Monsyn (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was a criteria for QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EXIF data are nothing confidential. If you don't want to disclose your real name, you don't enter it into your camera. If you don't want to disclose the geolocation of the image, you turn off GPS before taking picture. If you don't want other people to know where you've been at a certain timepoint in the past, you don't upload pictures you had taken at that time and place. If you have generated your name or the coords in EXIF accidentially, you can remove them from the EXIF, but that's still no reason to remove the whole EXIF. --A.Savin 13:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mannomann...

Currently, it seems that a scenario with personal hypersensitivities and revenge evaluations is building up again. Folks! How about refraining from bitchy comments for once and staying objective before this escalates again? Just saying. --Smial (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strict newbies

Time and again, people who are (relatively) new to the QI process, or even new to Wikimedia Commons at all, try to introduce themselves by rating particularly strictly and rejecting numerous photos based on idiosyncratic or overly strict criteria. The result is always that a large number of photos end up in consensual review and that we all have a lot more work to do as a result than if the usual sense of proportion were applied straight away when rating. But even if no one objects and the photos don’t end up in the consensual review, that's not good, because in this way photos are rejected that were actually perfectly fine; that’s unfair.

Does anyone have an idea what to do about this recurring tendency of newcomers to introduce themselves by being particularly strict? Could we e.g. add a special hint to the guidelines, like “If you are new, please do not rate many photos at once, but first study the votes made by experienced users to get a feeling about the correct application of the rules.”? But that probably wouldn't help much either, would it? Has anybody got a better idea? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a good idea, but others may know better than me how common this problem is. From what I see, it's fairly uncommon for a new user to be both prolific and misunderstand how the criteria are applied. It seems like people are usually either quick to learn or don't make all that many reviews. Still, it may be possible, as well, to use a script to highlight reviews by people with, say, fewer than 50 edits to this page to ensure that any newbie reviews receive a second look. (A big issue as I see it is how hard it is to ensure the reviews are good because of the sheer number of candidates at any given point). But we can also just be direct. For example:
@Remontees: please slow your rate of reviews and try to understand why people are disagreeing before continuing. For example, there is nothing wrong with most of the filenames you pointed out. You are welcome to ask questions about the process on this page. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Well, you are right, probably I have overrated the generality of the problem ;–). I’ve just remembered two or three recent cases, and I wanted to be polite, but probably it’s even politer to speak directly with the people instead of speaking about them. Sorry if my post has caused any irritations. Thank you, Rhododendrites, for expressing it so well! --Aristeas (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I noticed it, sorry for wasting your time and causing you trouble. Have a good evening.--Remontees (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with @Aristeas: and @Rhododendrites: and thank you for your intervention. I guess there are very few objective criteria for QI images and reviewers have to adapt to an average standard for image quality, specially in regard to composition and maybe also for colors and exposure, which imo are essential for a good image. On the other side y don't like exessive pixel-peeping for noise, CA and even focusing, which discourages many potential candidates --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem is that the standards as interpreted by 'regulars' is quite low, particularly on composition. I would change the requirments to two positive votes for QI, not one. We also should cut down on regulars who nominate too many similar images. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree --Commonists 12:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the idea of two pro votes. Some of the candidates are just acceptable but not good. I can understand the idea of similar images, but what are similar images? Same place, same subject, same motif but different place, resolution, date taken, different author but same subject and idea, ...? I think "similar" would cause a lot of discussions.--XRay 💬 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
QIC is very much about "acceptable" photos that meet or exceed certain minimum standards. First and foremost, it's about avoiding mistakes in photo craftsmanship. QIC is not about selecting only perfect photos. Lenses have physical limits, sensors have physical limits, and geometric optics unfortunately have their fingers in the pie as well. Depending on the shooting conditions, this occasionally leads to absolutely unavoidable "errors" that are actually not errors because they are unavoidable. Of course, shooting a sunlit landscape without "action" at ISO1600 is not meant as "unavoidable". --Smial (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet ISO 1600 landscape photos taken on modern DSLRs still ought to be able to pass QI, as they have captured no less light than ISO 100 shots from compact cameras. At FPC being "not as good as it could have been" is a valid reason to oppose, but here at QIC we are just ensuring that the photo meets some minimum standard. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been noticing that a lot of the voters have been focusing on pixel-peeping over composition on the QI candidates. Two votes might help, but another option would just be for people to more aggressive about moving images to "discuss" and noting compositional issues if they have been approved too quickly (or denied too quickly). I'm also wondering if it would be possible to automate the required experience evaluation, have QICbot take it into account, and possibly increase the experience level required or restrict amount of voting by less experienced users. For instance, it seems that some quite active reviewers have no photography experience themselves, it might make sense to have a threshold of images submitted, or require a threshold of their own QI images to vote or to raise an active votes limit. --Lambda (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally do not agree that for QI the composition needs to be "good", in the sense of "FP lite". For me there just needs to be no clear errors like cutting off important parts, perspective distortion without a clear artistic purpose, unrealistic colors, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I have realised that User:Hillopo2018 created his account two days ago and immediately began reviewing QI candidates. Many of them. COM:QIC#Evaluating_images would appear to prevent this, and I have advised him to wait until 30th July to comment further on nominations. The question is what is to be done with his existing reviews. Some are quite justified, others not, and some quite moot? Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may be biased, but I think all of User:Hillopo2018's reviews should be removed or struck out (I believe that's what indicates they shouldn't be counted), and a more experienced user should try to re-evaluate the images. Even if some of them are justified, the fact that they're not in compliance with the policy means that they should be re-done. But I am also a relatively new user (though contributed to Wikipedia a bunch in the past), and I'm the subject of one of Hillopo2018's negative reviews, so to avoid conflict of interest it would be better if someone else did that. @Rodhullandemu, Aristeas, Rhododendrites, Charlesjsharp, XRay, Smial, and King of Hearts: you have all chimed in in this thread, and all have significantly more experience on Commons than I do, would one of you feel like doing that, removing Hillopo2018's QI reviews and re-reviewing if possible? --Lambda (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a second review (and a possible discussion) would be a good way. --XRay 💬 05:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lambda's proposal on what to do with Hillopo2018's reviews. I oppose any requirement for reviewers to prove how good they are as photographers, though. This comes up now and then, and the fundamental issue with it is the question of whether Commons is a photographers' club or a site for the use and benefit of both photographers and viewers. Actually, I think it's both, and since it's both, it makes perfect sense that most reviewers are more or less serious photographers but some of us just like to look at photos and have opinions about what we're looking at, even if we lack specific technical knowledge to teach anyone how to do x, y or z. If a decision is ever made to expel me, I will respect that, or at some point, I might decide to upload some of my cellphone pics, but I know very well what their technical limitations are. But in the meantime, I will oppose these kinds of suggestions. Can you imagine if music critics had to prove they could perform well on the flute, and otherwise weren't permitted to critique my performances as a professional flutist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a requirement to have nominated X number of QIs before you can review? Photographers can satisfy that requirement by just nominating their own photos, but non-photographers can also nominate photos taken by other people. By getting feedback on photos that they think are good enough for QI, they will learn to calibrate their expectations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a reasonable idea, but we shouldn't set the number too high; I'd say no more than 25 for a minimum. I actually don't know if I've even nominated that many photos at QIC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can improve the quality of the assessments with such technical limitations. QIC has become a rather exclusive club with some top dogs for a very long time, where newcomers have a pretty hard time. To build additional hurdles in this situation I think is a very bad idea. We have CR. Anyone who sees their photos misjudged by an inexperienced newbie can take advantage of that. It may mean extra work for a little while, but it also gives the newbie a chance to learn. If we are lucky, we will gain a constructive contributor as a result; if not, hopefully that person will then leave. Unless it's a troll, but technical measures never help against that anyway. --Smial (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)[reply]
You make good points. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really understand process

I don't really understand the process with QI. I nominated an image on this day candidate_list#July_19.
The image is this one and now I try to find it to check on it here at QI.
I can't find it and I haven't got any information if it was accepted or not, how am I supposed to check it? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goran tek-en: Your image went to consensual review and got declined. You can find the archived version of the review process here: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_July_27_2021#File:Nemška_pomladna_ofenziva_1918.svg. Best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Goran tek-en: It looks like the first vote was for an invalid reason, as there is no size requirement for SVGs. Feel free to renominate the image after fixing the COM:OVERCAT issues mentioned (for example, Category:World War I and Category:War are too general, since you already have Category:World War I forces of Germany). You can also consider adding Category:Western Front maps of World War I. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Flogaus-Faust, King of Hearts Thanks for the information, I have fixed the COM:OVERCAT and will renominate. I do have some more questions.
  1. When someone edits a candidate, is there not a notification sent to the nominator?
  2. When a candidate is declined is there not a notification sent to the nominator/creator?
  3. How can I find a candidate in the archive as I don't know which date it was archived and where is the archive located? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goran tek-en There is no notification. However, you can find the archive page by looking at the "File usage on Commons" section on the file description. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goran tek-en, I pinged you, but you didn't see the ping. I pinged you again this time, as I think there is still an instance of overcat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goran tek-en As a general rule, an image should not be put in both a parent category and a subcategory, as you've done with Category:Military history of Germany and Category:Maps of the military history of Germany. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Pings don't work on the QIC page because of the weird formatting. Long-term issue. Yet more evidence we're sorely lacking in people with wikitechnical expertise. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Rhododendrites So now we now why pings don't work there and I have removed one category now.
As I create illustrations/maps, images of very different subjects which nearly always is out of my knowledge I have to depend on the requester regarding information on them, this includes categories so it's hard to know/understand all of this, but I'm learning. So really thanks to all of you. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and substituting one's own preferences

I realise that composition is part of the QI standard, but it seems to me that some users are usurping the creative intention of the photographer by saying essentially "I wouldn't have shot it like that". Example: I shot this to include some buildings as context, but apparently they should be cropped. That's not the only recent example. That should be my creative decision, and like it or lump it. I've said before, here and on other websites, that I do not want my work to be misrepresented as something I didn't intend. Can we get some consensus that as long as the composition is not outrageously egregious, the creator's wishes should be respected? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we could agree on a clear rule about it, even "outrageously egregious" is subjective. If you came up with this topic due to the discussion here I would still oppose independently of what we could agree on. I cannot help that. Poco a poco (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the point is: For technical image quality (sharpness, resolution, noise), the bar for QI is usually somewhat lower, often the same, and in very rare cases higher than FP. On all other photography-related matters, such as composition, lighting, and interestingness, the bar for QI is much lower (and yes, interestingness de facto does matter at QIC even though it shouldn't - your image can't be so boring that no one bothers to review it for 8 days). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) It's a slippery slope to overapply matters of taste to these images. For example some people think it's OK to crop the tops of heads in portraits. I disagree, and I would not shoot them like that myself. So if that is what we are going to do, I'll feel free to oppose any portrait with a cropped head. You see? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view for sure, but I don't think trying to more or less get rid of the subjectivity in judgments here could ever work. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/Archive_25&oldid=600840247"