Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Why did this edit hide the discussion?

I have to say, the coding of this page is really user-unfriendly. What did I do wrong here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now. The pipe character "|" should be at the end. ;) Jee 07:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Weird. Thanks for fixing it! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Only editable by administrators?

Why am I getting this message when I try to make the necessary edits to promote a picture?

"This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators."

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I reloaded, and the protection was thereby lifted... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ikan: as stated in the edit summary I had to block for a short time edits due to an issue with QICBot (see 2 threads further above) Poco² 07:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I see. I'm glad it was nothing more serious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Poco a poco for take care of this problem --The Photographer 11:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Several pictures (october, the 7th, for instance) are not tagged, and nominators not notified...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Some words about noise.

Left: judged as QI, right: judged as too noisy, also by the photographer of the left image

Before declining an image because of noise in the sky, please watch very careful. All cameras with bayer sensor tend to appear noisy in near monochrome areas, esp. blue and red. Please try to remain self-critical and neutral. -- Smial (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC) (Btw.: Both images are good enough for QI, imho. --Smial (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC) )

The left side of that image looks noisier to me, or at any rate, the noise is narrower, so there's more of it. Is there anything I should do about that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably consider both good enough for QI, by the way, though I might give someone a review suggesting a bit of de-noising for the one on the left, depending on the overall appearance of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No special action required. My comment should only be a reminder to apply the same standards in evaluations, if possible. --Smial (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I will try, and thanks for the informational post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Smial, while I agree against pixel-peeping too much and agree such areas make noise more visible at 100%, I find that noise can often be introduced to sky in programs like Lightroom with the default sharpening options that apply no mask. Holding down Alt while moving the mask slider to the right until the featureless blue sky shows solid black will prevent sharpening from increasing apparent noise in this area. Another option, apply negative sharpening of equal amount (up to -50) to the area using a local adjustment. Also if too low a JPG quality setting is used (I use 90% in Lightroom) then JPG artefacts can start causing issues in these areas. Lastly, buy a high-DPI monitor and these problems disappear :-) -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thx for advice, but I don't use advanced image manipulation techniques. Almoust all work is done within the raw converter. Thereafter only looking for dustspots, perspective, scaling, and saving with 100% jpg quality ;-). That's all.
I'm not a fan of excessive noise removal. Given we have 8-bit JPGs some noise can even be necessary to avoid banding. --Smial (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, looking at both cases I have to admit that none of them is acceptable as QI to me. I don't think either that a sharpening mask is any advanced manipulation technique and LR applies per default a reasonable mask, which requires adjustment though in case of higher ISO levels. Poco² 18:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bug when adding links

I just added some links to pages with other photos on them, as part of a discussion in CR. In other words, my comment was formatted like this one, except with an asterisk and the "cmt" template at the beginning. Why does that make the discussion disappear, and what needs to be done to avoid that problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem are the = in your comment, the /Discuss-template tries to interprete these as parameters. You should make a wikilink to the images in this case: File:Image-Grand central Station Outside Night 2.jpg --Magnus (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, it's strange that it's doing that with URLs, but I appreciate the explanation and will try to remember this. Thanks, Magnus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Revenge votes and harassment by "Ralf Roletschek", episode 673

See COM:ANU##User:Ralf_Roletschek. Please. --A.Savin 21:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Best practice for when to switch to /Discuss

Hello,

There was a nomination that had been declined, but a new version uploaded without subsequent review. I don't know that it would've changed the outcome, and don't want to belabor it here, but is it fair to say that if a nomination is declined and a new version is uploaded, it's best to immediately change /Decline to /Discuss? I've been simply adding a comment pinging the reviewer and hoping for a re-review. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, if you think the new version may solve the issue, you should do the both: ping the reviewer and switch to /Discuss. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If it's for a easily correctable fault like dust spots or CA, I would just ping the reviewer in my reply, who might change their assessment from decline to promote without needing to go to CR. If they disagree or don't reply then you can send it to CR. (Personally, I would never decline over fixable problems, preferring to leave a review and give them about a week to do it, declining at the end if  Not done.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I also recommend KoH's approach. Discussions at CR are more time consuming and, if possible, should be avoided --Poco² 21:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Does ping work in the review part of the QIs? I have seen that I was pinged but didn't recieve a notice. --C messier (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing several times in the QI candidates page, pinged but no notices recieved. I don't know the reason. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. Responding with a ping is typically what I've done, but sometimes nothing happens thereafter. The difficult thing is keeping track of time that elapses between the ping and when it would be archived, and not knowing when to switch to /discuss. Is there ever a time when it's appropriate to switch from unreviewed to discuss? I'm thinking about times when people add comments about fixable issues, but there's no follow-up.

Regarding notifications, pings only generate notifications when accompanied by a fresh signature, I believe, and it seems like this page uses javascript to replace your signature before saving (hence why my signature there doesn't look like my signature here). Hence, no notification. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your explanation about why we don't get pings makes sense to me. I don't ping because it never worked and because I also hope that those who review images at QI scan the page from time to time looking for feedback from other users here (that is what I always do but I see that not everybody is doing it). So, if you have uploaded a new version and believed that the issue why a picture was declined has been solved you should wait 2 days from your last comment (not from the date when you included the image in QIC), if then nothing happens move to CR to prevent the bot from sweeping it away. Poco² 16:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

QICbot bug

QIC bot today just removed the files from the list [1] and skipped most of its other functions (tagging and sending messages). Shall we add the bagde manually? --C messier (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There is the same example in August, for this file [2] or this file [3] for example. (@Classiccardinal: Olivier LPB (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

May be the same problem today. Pictures removed and nothing more. --XRay ^talk 05:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Daniel: can you please have a look into it. Today the bot endet even earlier and did not archive anything after it removed the relevant candidates. I've reverted QICBot today saving the changes later on. Poco² 07:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what about the 7th october candidates ? Five of mine have been apparently promoted, but they are not tagged and I did not receive any notification ? What shoul I do ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case I add the template "QualityImage" myself. It's promoted. --XRay ^talk 10:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you !--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

When doing so, please, add the edit summary a link to the archived page where the image was promoted

Once again, the bot is failing to do its job, as on Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 19 2016. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I noticed it too. Some of the images are properly tagged, others not. --Dirtsc (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Display bug

Do any of the rest of you find that if you review several files at QIC, then navigate somewhere else on the site and later return to QIC, you see the same page you saw before you made your latest reviews, and the only way you can see your new reviews and the newest nominees is to go into editing mode? Then, if you review another file, your view of the current status of the page is restored? This has happened to me repeatedly, for some time (I don't recall when it started). Clearing my cache has no effect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ikan: I haven't seen something like that (I use Google Chrome) but what really annoys me is the fact that everytime that I promote/decline a picture (Edit mode) the cursor goes to the end of the page. --Poco² 17:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I use Firefox, and after each review I post, my cursor goes back to the beginning of whichever day's listings that photo was part of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Poco: Funfact: I use firefox 49.0.2 and windows 7 pro 64 bit. Both at work and at home. At work the cursor jumps to the end of the page, at home to the top. "Wunder der Technik" ;-) --smial 09:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow Poco² 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hilfe!

Ich hab vorhin das Bild Grave of the poet Pierre Dupont in the old cemetery of Croix-Rousse (Lyon, France) bewertet, bei dem ich zuvor keinen Kommentar gesehen habe. Anschließend zeigte es mir aber irgendeinen Bearbeitungskonflikt an und ich wollte meinen Edit über die Versionsgeschichte rückgängig machen. Erst jetzt hab ich gesehen, daß ich damit offenbar nicht nur meinen letzten Edit rückgängig gemacht habe und wollte wiederum meine Änderung rückgängig machen. Funktioniert nicht so recht. Kann da bitte jemand helfen? Genaugenommen wollte ich diese Verion wiederherstellen. Danke im voraus und liebe Grüße! --Häferl (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominierung zurückziehen, die schon in der Disk. ist

Wenn man in einer normalen Tagesabstimmung "Withdrawn" einträgt, wird die Nominierung grau und wird archiviert. Bei den Nominierungen zur Diskussion funktioniert das aber nicht. @Hubertl: hat einen solchen Edit von mir jetzt korrigiert. Soweit, so gut. Aber dadurch wird der Eintrag nun wieder rot, wer nicht genau hinsieht, stimmt weiter ab. Ist das so gewollt? Wie macht man es korrekt? --Ralf Roleček 12:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ich glaube, du hast es richtich gemacht. Ich habe es jetzt korrigiert.--Peulle (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2 MP for non-photographic media

by Алексей Худяков / Alexey Khudiakov (Semiryak)

As the recent CR section shows, there is a lot of disagreement over whether the 2 MP requirement applies to scalar images which are not photos, such as File:1914 Gefreiter (OR3) of Russian Life Guards Uhlan Regiment of Her Majesty p02 (re-enlistee 2nd category in Guard).png. Thoughts? (And I think we should come to a consensus on what we actually want rather than merely interpreting what the current policy means, because we set the policy ourselves.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the participants of all the related CRs: @Niklitov, Peulle, Hubertl, Ralf Roletschek, and Smial: @Ermell, Ikan Kekek, Basotxerri, Lmbuga, and Yann: -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion is this a very special case, which cannot be subsumized into the 2MB-Rule.

1) these images are mixtures of bitmap and vector graphics - in the very end, they are bitmaps, nothing else is possible IMO.

2) these images are big enough for offset printing double the size as they are in real with no loss of quality.

Therefore I have no doubt, these images are all QI. It is necessary sometimes to kick rules. --Hubertl 23:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO that image easily could be SVG and have a infinite size --The Photographer 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

by Васильев Кирилл Сергеевич (Kirill S. Vasilyev)

I´m afraid, but in my opinion, this patterns can´t be vectorized, but it is also possible, that my knowledge with new graphic software is not really up to date...--Hubertl 02:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You can do anything in SVG using Inkscape, take a look to the category Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated --The Photographer 15:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll go along with any policy that's accepted by a consensus, but I think it's important for any new policy to be expressly mentioned at Commons:Image guidelines, because we need a clear reference, rather than an ad hoc policy on this kind of question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I welcome any consensus that is reached, but until there is a consensus, I will stick to the rule and decline the images under 2MP. I also think that we are potentially opening a Pandora's box here; once we allow some images to go below 2MP, how far below can we go? I respectfully disagree with Hubertl that all the mentioned images are QI; some are simply too small to show meaningful details. It therefore seems like we would have to make ad hoc decisions for each image. I would rather decline them all outright.--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Dear all! Thank you for your opinion! Indeed, never before such highly artistic images do not appear on the Commons (but below 2MP and 2MP — this requirement Digital Camera!) in category Rank insignia. We (Wikimedia RU) have invited interesting professional designers and historians in the project and they agreed to upload its hand made collection (World rank insignia). These images are usually printed in small. These images we plan to use as an icon in the articles (cards — navigation box). Please help thin the rules or advise what kind of nomination better get these images? For Commons is a very important and rare contribution! Best Regards, —Niklitov (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment We can adapt the rules. File:1904ic-p11.png (0.16 Megapixel) is just too small, while File:1914 Page of Russian Pages His Imperial Majesty Corps.png (1.48 Megapixel) might be OK. We have to take into account what is described. 1.5 Mpx might be OK for a very small item, but it wouldn't be for a big item or a map. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  While I sympathize with this position, I find myself unable to agree with the imposition of ad hoc rules. Yes, some images are special and we might feel that exceptions from the rules are warranted, but I cannot ignore the fact that this rule was placed there by the Commons administrators for a reason. They implemented a lower limit for QI images and I feel it should not be up to us normal users to overrule this when we feel like it. Given that reviewers frequently have high expectations for other issues as well (such as categorization), I remain at the position that the images in question should not be given a format QI status. It's not that they're not nice; it's just that they don't fit the criteria.--Peulle (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  +1. Nice to have these useful images. But, as mentioned before, we have a hard limit of 2 MPixels here. For those famous "easy-to-take-images" usually a higher resoltion is demanded. Some reviewers even decline downscaled images though downscaling is often necessary for technical reasons. I can not see any argument why we should make an exception for non-photographic media. An image with 6 Mpixels resolution can be printed in any size and will show enough detail at normal viewing distance. An image with 2 Mpixels will look a bit pixelated, but can still be acceptable if using enhanced scaling methods/interpolation. An image with 800 pixels at the longer edge appears like C64 graphics if scaled to A4 (or letter size) printers. For images with high value, but technical quality below the rules of QIC we have com:vic. --smial 10:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for writing german, i don't understand all of your arguments.
Ich bin der Meinung, daß eine starre Grenze nichts taugt. Man muß das vom Motiv abhängig machen. Auch ist nicht einzusehen, warum 1,99 abgelehnt wird und 2,01 ok sein soll. Ein Bild unter Studiobedingungen mit einer modernen Kamera hat heute 6, 12 oder mehr MP. Ein Schnappschuß in der Wildnis darf auch heute noch gerne viel kleiner sein.
Google-Translate: I believe that a rigid border is no good. One must make the subject dependent on the subject. Also, it is not clear why 1.99 is rejected and 2.01 should be ok. A picture under studying conditions with a modern camera today has 6, 12 or more MP. A snapshot in the wilderness may still be much smaller today. --Ralf Roleček 23:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• After seeing the results in QIC, where most votes are in favour of 'decline', I am even more certain that the right decision is to decline all these images that are below 2MP in size. If the Commons administrators change the rule, it will be fine, but right now we're following the rule they set and it should not be up to us normal users to decide whether to suspend the rule or not.--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Peulle, I agree with you on substance, but on procedure, is it true that admins set the rules on this site by themselves, rather than rules being set by a consensus of users in general? I don't think that admins setting rules and then dictating them to everyone is the Wiki way, so I doubt that's how rules are set or changed at Commons, but it would be very interesting to find out that I'm wrong on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but the rules must have been set by somebody, and it's not just normal users like us, is it? I think some kind of administrators have been involved when it comes to setting the guidelines. My point is that it should not be up to ordinary users such as us to decide what the rule is. The rule is there and we have to live with it until it is changed (if it ever is).--Peulle (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The rules have been developed by normal users and can be changed after discussion and consensus. I can not find an exception for non photographic media except animated GIF. I can not understand, why reviewers vote for images which are too small only because these ar "nice" or "useful" or whatever. First discuss new or altered rules, then vote, then change the rule. Then vote "pro" for thumbnail image sizes. Today an image below 2 Mpixels can not be QI. --smial 11:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that part of this discussion is marred by slight differences in the English language text and the German language text. (I am not sufficiently familiar with the other languages to comment further). The English language page titled Commons:Image guidelines has been translated into German page with the title Commons:Bild-Richtlinien. The word "Richtlinien" implies that something is mandatory and corresponds to the English word "directive" (see for example the use of the word directive by the EU here (English) and here (German)). However the word "guideline" means that you can deviate from the instructions provided that there is good reason to do so. The word "guideline" has a stronger meaning than the word "recommendation" (in German "Empfehlung").

If we follow the English text, then I believe that these images should be allowed, provided that there is good reason, but if we follow the German text, then I believe that they should be disallowed. Which text are we following? This page says that the English text is the text that should be followed.

Given that when the images in question capture all the relevant detail that could reasonably be seen by the unaided human eye, I see no reason to permit the 2 MP limit to be waived in this circumstance. I woudl also be happy for it to be waived in any other circumstance where a good reason is cited. Martinvl (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion in scope for all content creators

I started a discussion here which is meant for all content creators who are less active in admin boards. Feel free to express your opinion there to avoid broken discussion here and there. Thanks for your cooperation. Jee 06:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

About QI source

A have a simple question, a derivate work from a flickr image could be QI? --The Photographer 18:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"All nominated images should be the work of Commons users." - I believe, derivative works from other origin are not included. -- smial 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

But if the work is mine, for example, but based on a flickr picture? --The Photographer 18:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. -- smial 20:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have to see it to judge. Simple edits, no. A photomontage of many Flickr images, sure. Remember that we do allow paintings photographed by Commoners here - if you feel your contribution to the image is greater than a mere slavish reproduction of a painting, then it's probably OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

If the original image on Flickr is not QI on Commons, I don't see any problem with creating a derivate work of yours, uploading it to Commons an nominating it to QI. --Poco² 15:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --The Photographer 15:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is not clear to me. What you meant by "But if the work is mine, for example, but based on a flickr picture?" No problem if it is "own work" from your Flickr stream. Otherwise I don't think it can be considered as a "work of a Wikimedian". Jee 15:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: The derivate work is mine (own work), however, the source(s) image(s) is(are) from Flickr --The Photographer 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

A "derivative work" can't be an "own work". It is a misunderstanding and some upload tools like DerivativeFX made such mistakes by mentioning the author of original and derivative separately. The correct attribution is to mention the original author first, followed by the person who made the modification along with what had done. (See this example where modification is mentioned using {{Retouched}}. Mentioning it in author field may also good.) Jee 03:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it can, if the modification is large enough. See File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg, for instance. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There source is not mentioned as "own work"; but "see below". Author field is filled with all others. Then why you think "it can"? It is a good example of how adaptation is possible with compatible licenses and how attributed. Mmxx is holding the copyright of the montage making efforts only. (In a derived work, the new author can claim only the copyright of the modifications he had done. Copyright of original works included in the adaptations stay with the original authors.) Jee 06:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we are not dealing with copyright, but whether it can be considered the work of a Commoner for the purposes of QIC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes; I know. But how a work becomes "work of a Commoner" when the source is not of a Commoner? I don't think we can accept modified NASA photographs in QIC. Our decision to avoid non Wikimedian's work in QIC is not based on any particular policy; just to avoid some crowds. I don't think allowing some exceptions is good as it will make our rules more complex and lead to endless discussions. Jee 07:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

+1. In my opinion the rule is intended to motivate wikipedians to step out, walk around and make own photos in good quality. --smial 08:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User talk:The Photographer, good that the discussion did not end with my message. When I said:

If the original image on Flickr is not QI on Commons, I don't see any problem with creating a derivate work of yours, uploading it to Commons an nominating it to QI.

I was actually understanding:

If the original image on Flickr IS YOURS BUT is not QI on Commons, I don't see any problem with creating a derivate work of yours, uploading it to Commons an nominating it to QI.

Totally agree with Jee, definitely creating a derivative work of a pictures from somebody else is not your work and therefore not the work of a Commoner Poco² 19:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

We do allow diagrams, such as File:Valued image seal.svg. Again, as I said above, I don't believe a modified NASA photo qualifies, but something that could be described as "digital art created by a Commoner from free sources" is OK for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My question was because I made this image, however, it's based in a non Commons author image. It could be QI? and more important, how evaluate diagrams? --The Photographer 21:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem in my opinion. For diagrams I'd just go by loose criteria like "looks good and is error-free." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not check to see whether or not it qualifies as a VI instead? For example, should this image be a candidate for a QI? I don't think so as my input to the image was small. It is however a VI and I believe rightly so as the criteria for VIs are totally different. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A svg haven't a "size", svg resolution is infinite because it's a vector image --The Photographer 18:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the size of your contribution, not the size of the image. My opinion is that drawing a whole diagram from scratch is a pretty big contribution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My comments above are more about photo and video related. I've not much knowledge on how to evaluate the "original contributions" added when vectorization is done. Anyway, I tried to improve the attribution and source there. Jee 04:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Renominations

A quick question - I looked in the guidelines but couldn't find this mentioned there. Are renominations of declined images allowed if the reason for failure has been addressed? DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Jee 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. DeFacto (talk). 07:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Heads-up regarding Commons:CropTool

Hi QI contributors,

I have noticed an issue with the use of Commons:CropTool for assisting a user in generating a cropped version from another file. If the tool is used on a QI, the {{QualityImage}} template is automatically copied over to the derived version, which is then incorrectly tagged as QI as well. I have described the problem here. Of course this problem should be handled by the tool or the users using the tool, but in a quick search I have found that there are apparently more than 200 images that have been incorrectly tagged as QIs in this process. Therefore, if you have noticed in your watchlist that a cropped version has been created using this tool, it may be a good idea to go have a look at the derived version, and check that it has not incorrectly been tagged as QI as well, and if so, fix the problem by removing the temlate. I have also noticed cases where user categories such as "Quality images by User:XXX" have been mindlessly copied over. Check that as well. And {{LargeImage}}, and... I am unsure if this is such a serious problem, that use of the tool should be suspended until the issue is resolved??? The problem also affects VIs and FPs. -- Slaunger (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Affected FPs fixed manually. -- Slaunger (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The tool has now been updated so that it should not copy the {{Quality image}} template (or its aliases) or the "Quality images by User:XXX" categories. – Danmichaelo (δ) 18:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Great work, Danmichaelo! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image: Rejection?

I would like to nominate my image for "Quality image". But it seems like it gets rejected. Adamdaley (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In what way does it appear to you that your image get rejected? Specifically, what have you tried to do, which failed? I do not see in your contributions that you have made any edits to the candidates list, which is required for you to insert nominated images. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've gone to the "Nominate this image for 'QI'". Isn't that enough? Adamdaley (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this may be a bit confusing, but it is actually not enough. You also need to open Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list in edit mode where a you then get the option to actually add your nominations to the list. Then save. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Adamdaley, you have here more information: Help:Gadget-QInominator Poco² 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Poc - I ended up finding where I needed to go. My image ended up being rejected in the end by slight flaws in the image. To be honest, I've seen some that needed improvement in the settings of their camera's but still got "Quality Image". So go figure. Adamdaley (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Inacceptable behaviour by User:The Photographer

I don't think such edits [4] [5] [6] [7] are acceptable. There is a nomination, which two users commented on. One user left a comment without expressing either a support or an oppose. The other one (that is me) opposed the nomination, and provided a reason why he doesn't think it's QI. Given that, the current status is "Decline". The nominator is free to move the nomination to CR, but then he also should write why he does it. As long as he has no arguments, the current status of the nomination is uncontested, and should not be change in any way. This and this are clear abuse of the rollback button. For this reason, I have revoked The Photographer's rollback flag for now. --A.Savin 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You are omitting something important. BTW, I'm moving it to the right place --The Photographer 11:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm really wondering what game you are playing here. May all the users who donated in your crowdfunding campaign, reconsider their decision. --A.Savin 11:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with A.Savin that those edits by The Photographer are not acceptable. The decline reasons by A.Savin are factually correct, and to move it to CR you would have to argue why you do not agree with the decline reason. I also agree it is abuse of the revert tool, but I do no think it is a good idea, that you A.Savin revokes that right as you are involved in a conflict with the user. It will clearly upset The Photographer and is not constructive. Wrt to the comment The Photographer refers to, the comment of A.Savin has two parts. One giving useful and factual advice on how categorization can be improved. In the specific case, A.Savin is entirely correct that the categorization that has been done is completely unsatisfactory for QI. The other part is a general and harsh criticism of The Photographer's conduct and the crowdsourcing campaign for new equipment. The Photographer appears to have been hurt by those remarks. Understandable, but it is clear for me that A.Savin has not let this personal conflict affect any reviews he has done on The Photographers nominations. I recommend The Photographer to focus on fixing the factual issues regarding his nominations instead of letting this personal conflict spill over to QIC, and if rights needs to be revoked, let another admin do it if they agree such a right removal is warranted. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Slaunger Per your comment, I'm going to restore his rollback. Please undo this. --A.Savin 11:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks A.Savin for restoring the rollback rights. I have undone the edit. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Slaunger The problem is that I have sent many pictures to discussion without comment. Only after I write this in A.Savin's discussion does he begin to demand a reason for Discuss. You can see here a example just a day before. Thanks --The Photographer 11:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Photographer Isn't the difference that in the cases from yesterday you had actually done something to help resolve the issues, that was pointed out, whereas in this case you had not done anything to improve the categorization problem, that was pointed out? It seems like you were simply upset by the comment by A.Savin on his talk page, and let that spill over to QIC. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See the file page history of the cathedral I added a catherory and I sent it to discuss without any comment . --The Photographer 12:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Wrong. The file you're refering to, was sent to CR by me, due to lack of categories. Please provide a valid example, where you "sent many pictures to discussion without comment"... --A.Savin 12:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nominations removed

Hi, I think that it was a simple editing mistake, I could add directly again the nominations?. Btw, @Ezarate: be carefull next time and don't worry it happend with me too --The Photographer 10:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

[8] look this. Only two days were displayed. Is the edition prevous to my reversion. Feliz año!!--Ezarateesteban 12:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Auto" Setting Compared to "Manual" and "Aperture" Settings

As I tried to explain to Slaunger that he would be better off using "Manual" settings compared to "Auto" since I noticed majority of his images were on "Auto". Unbeknown to me, Slaunger claims to have been shooting in "Manual" and "Aperture", which of course I only went through a few more images of his and did find some to backup what he stated. Maybe a suggestion to new comers, the people who assess images here could suggest "Manual" and "Aperture" settings to improve their photography? Since Slaunger suggested to me that my f/4 was too low, that I needed higher than f/8 with my ship image.

Of course, I did do a introduction to photography course in 2012 and maybe have some basic knowledge but the Nikon D3400 camera (with a AF-P Nikkor 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G lens and another lens Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is waiting for me in the Philippines when I go on holidays on January 9 for 30 days) I recently bought just before Christmas, is the first DSLR camera I have had. Prior to that I had a Kodak EasyShare Z710, a Fujifilm FinePix S2950 and then a Nikon Coolpix P510. To this day I keep in contact with my Photography teacher. In this last week, I have installed Photoshop CC 2017 with Lightroom CC (2015), so I am just learning how to use Photoshop. While I'm in the Philippines, I'll be taking a lot of images/photos for Wikimedia Commons and for personal use. So expect some around January 16th. Adamdaley (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Image guidelines "Focus and depth of field". We can't say one method is better than other. People use Manual, Aperture priority, Shutter priority, Program mode as they feel fit. Jee 03:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is "auto" in that list of yours? I'm only trying to give a friendly suggestion to those who assess the images that maybe they could help improve other wikimedia commons images to be a little better than just plain and simple point and shoot. Just put in a little effort is all i ask. Adamdaley (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What am I missing?

I know I'm fairly new here. Just happened to stumble onto the "Quality Image" candidates section, which I admit, I didn't quite understand how to nominate my own "Ship" image at first. Now after about 10 days or so, I've noticed that quite a few images are being "passed" as "Quality Image" on pretty much everything and the one thing I have noticed that hasn't been done, is the small "Quality Image" icon placed at the top of each image page. Do the fairies and pixies go through each image later on and add the little icon on each page? Who keeps track of each image that has passed "Quality Image"? The only thing I see getting done is a review, that's it for each image. Nothing about a little green icon at the top of the image page to say this is ..... and so on.

Is this the same type of format for "Valued Images" and "Featured Images" as well? Mind you, don't get me wrong, I don't think the fairies and pixies actually work here at Commons. They're just part of my sense of humour. I realise there is structure here, I'm not quite feeling it right. I guess, I'm used to Wikipedia structure that's where I've come from, considering I was a coordinator for 2 years in recent years. Adamdaley (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Adamdaley The little pixie and fairy activities are taken care of by QICbot. It takes care of removing all closed nominations from the candidates list and those that gets promoted, gets tagged with the {{QualityImage}} template on their file pages. All closed nominations gets archived on pages like Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 04 2017 by the bot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Adamdaley you will also find your declined ship nomination on that archive page. With four oppose votes and no support votes it did not have a snowballs chance in hell to get promoted, so I closed it as declined. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Slaunger ... Lets say that an image doesn't get to go down the bottom for votes or comments. What happens then? Adamdaley (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Adamdaley: I think I just explained that above...?? See also Commons:Quality images candidates#Grace period and promotion and following sections. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Slaunger ... I'm watching 3 or 4 images. I'll keep an eye on those to see what happens. Adamdaley (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Should faces be blurred?

My question is whether recognizable faces of people in photos taken in public places should be blurred or not, such as here for instance. I apologize in case this issue has been raised and discussed previously. --Cayambe (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Spain seems to require consent. Jee 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WARNING: third template parameter added – please remove.

Why am I getting that warning from this edit? It's really frustrating. It's so user-unfriendly to get that crap, especially after you've been editing here for about a year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: You may not have noticed but in that edit you added an extra pipe (|) into Pudelek's signature thus breaking the template. Error messages don't care how long you've been editing for, they are there to remind you when you make accidental mistakes. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that ArildV quickly fixed it anyway. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think he explained it to me in my user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

FastCCI

I was checking my "Valued Image" with FastCCI in it's category and it came up with "No results". Is this a bug? I've done other searches previously, but they may not have had any "assessed" images in them. A possibility that someone could look into this? It probably would not be limited to my image and to "Valued Image" potentially other such as "Quality Image" etc. Adamdaley (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Adamdaley: I experience the same for very recently promoted pictures, but not pictures promotes 1-2 days ago. I think this is 'normal' behavior. I think it has to do with some externally cloned data-base of the image repository, used by the fastCCI tool, which needs to be synchronized with the Commons data base, and this sometimes have a delay like this. But I am not an expert within the area. Wait a day or two and see if it does not work as intended then. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Adamdaley: It works now for me with your ship picture VI. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 18, 2017

Is it just me or do we have two identical sections for January 18, 2017? --Code (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate entry caused by this edit by Johann Jaritz. A few reviews in between may be affected; hope it can be re-reviewed. Jee 06:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Any Chance?

For one of the last uploaded pictures by me? br --Commander-pirx (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet is just to nominate the images you think have a chance, and see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just thinking, one of your experts could gi'me an info, if useful or not; having no eperience (like bet and loose), did'nt want to vast time. soory. BR --Commander-pirx (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The whole point of QI is for us to look at and judge photos. If you'd like advice on your photo and don't want to risk "losing" (what's the big deal, though?), you can try COM:Photography critiques. I think that people reading this talk page are spending time evaluating photos at COM:QIC and probably don't feel like doing an advisory evaluation on this talk page, which is at least in theory meant to be devoted to discussing the COM:QIC page, not evaluating individual photos. Good luck! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Missing QI tag

I have noticed that to most of the images in this group the quality image tag was not assigned. Anything we can do for it?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Too much noms/day

We have for thge 8 February 2x5=10 nominations by Poco a poco. Nine of them already approved. I also just noticed it. What to do? --A.Savin 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Shift to another day and poco should make a QI-break for one day ;-)
  AGF. --smial 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • True, A.Savin, sorry for that, I didn't actually realized (I promise!). I will move then 5 noms to tomorrow to keep it balanced, if that's ok. Poco² 17:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • That is certainly fine with me. Seems like a minor oversight. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
    • +1 --smial 21:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sock-/meatpuppet on QIC

See Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Larnaca_01-2017_img18_Chrysopolitissa_Church.jpg. User mainly active on German wikipedia, only 64 edits on Commons, first edit ever on QIC is oppose on my nomination with an unprecise rationale.

I'm not against opposing my nom, but is it really OK when someone otherwise not active here whatsoever, summoned to QIC by someone from wikipedia (I really cannot guess who was that, but I have many enemies on German WP, many of them e.g. because I am Russian and they don't like Russians in general) and then voting only against me, otherwise no participation on QIC intended. Kindergarten again? --A.Savin 16:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Our rules say at least 10 days and 50 edits. That's given. But you're right, just one contra and nothing else and a lot of delete requests. I would have been more reserved. (And hopefully you have enough friends on German WP too. The sound is very rough and unfriendly there. I reduced my activities too. It is not my way of communication. But there are still some very good fellows.) --XRay ^talk 17:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Illustrating Women, Filling the Gaps

Hi, This is a new project which also concerns COM:QI. Please help fill in Category:Quality images of women. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of declined nominations, using an incomplete summary

I think what Scotch Mist does here is quite problematic. Look at these three recent edits (however I'm sure there were more of similar kind) [9] [10] [11]. First of all, it is a bad practice to remove own nominations declined by other users entirely, instead of letting the bot archive them. (Yes, Scotch Mist changed the status to "Withdrawn" prior to that action, but this doesn't change anything on the issue, IMO.) When a nomination is not archived, one cannot see in case of a possible new nomination in future, if the photo was not already declined. For transparency reasons, declined nominations should be archived usual way. Always. The second thing are obviously misleading summaries ("Promoted 3 QI images" etc.). Because, not only some other nominations were promoted, but also own nominations removed. This is also bad for transparency and most people, when seeing such summaries, may think that the edits are alright (only promotion, nothing else), although they aren't. So, given all that, I think the actions by Scotch Mist are highly problematic, if not disruptive. Thanks. --A.Savin 15:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, that's bad practice. Nominatios should only be removed by the bot, regardless of whether they were declined or withdrawn. --Code (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies if my actions have caused problems here due to my apparent ignorance of how the 'withdrawal process' that I have witnessed of others has appeared to function. It should be stated from the outset that I have not re-nominated any previously declined/withdrawn images and generally when I have tagged an image as withdrawn this has been noted in the summary (although admittedly recently when I have simultaneously promoted images I have kept my summary short as often others have reviewed the same images in the meantime). Perhaps there should be a clear statement on the QI Candidates pages along the lines of (assuming I have now assessed the situation correctly): "A nominated image may be withdrawn at any time prior to review and within the eight day period prior to archive providing that the image has not already been declined or proposed for consensual review. A nominated image should not be removed from the QI Candidate List for a minimum period of two days after it is tagged  I withdraw my nomination for withdrawal to enable further comment as appropriate." --SM1 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a clearer statement might be: "A nominated image may be tagged for withdrawal ( I withdraw my nomination) within the eight day review period prior to archive providing that the image has not already been declined or proposed for consensual review. An image tagged for withdrawal should not be removed from the QI Candidate List for a minimum period of two days after it has been tagged to enable further comment as appropriate." Agree that it is desirable to maximize transparency --SM1 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

PS For the sake of accuracy the word 'false' should perhaps be replaced by 'incomplete' in the title of this thread and it should be noted that the first 'example' provided above was not an image that was previously declined but an image on which a comment was made in review to which a question was posed but as no answer was received I considered it best to simply withdraw the image. With regard to incomplete comments while I generally attempt to be as informative as possible in this regard it is perhaps another area where some more formal advice might be helpful. --SM1 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)  Done Suggested title change not contested over period of three weeks. --SM1 (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

♦ Help needed

Everybody should have a look on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Diese Seite ist in der Vergangenheit mehrfach bis zur völligen Unbenutzbarkeit vollgelaufen und die ganze Verwaltungsarbeit wurde in der Masse immer nur von zwei, drei Leuten erledigt. Zuletzt im Wesentlichen durch Hubertl (der noch mehr gemacht hat) und nur noch wenig von mir, wobei ich persönlich eigentlich immer nur gelegentlich vorn ein selektiertes Bild vorstelle, aber in der Vergangenheit schon hunderte umgeschaufelt habe. Nun hat Hubertl seit kurzem die Sortierarbeit eingestellt (was kein Vorwurf sein soll, es gibt immer gute Gründe, Nichtbeteiligung aller anderen QIC-Beteiligten könnte ich z.B. sehr gut verstehen) und die Seite läuft erneut in rasantem Tempo voll. Ich sehe für die Zukunft nur drei Handlungsperspektiven:
a) Jeder, der auf der Vorderseite Bapperl eingesammelt hat, sortiert seinen Kram nach dem Botlauf selber in passende Unterseiten um.
b) Die Seite wird aufgegeben, archiviert und der Bot wird so umgebaut, daß er halt nichts mehr dort hineinschiebt.
c) Man ändert nichts, alle ignorieren die Seite komplett, bis jeder Browser beim Aufruf platzt.
Das mag lästig klingen, aber die Sache mit der Selbstregulierung und dem Wikiprinzip funktioniert hier offensichtlich nicht (mehr). --Smial (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bitte Lösung b). Ich halte diese Kategorienseiten einfach nicht für sinnvoll und ich glaube auch nicht, dass irgendjemand einen Nutzen davon hat. --Code (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that very few people are aware of what happens in the background. Maybe there should be a re-assessment of the QI process with the submitter selecting the category from a fixed list. This list woudl be identical to the target list of categories, but with the text "_candidate" afixed to it. The BOT which processes the image will look for that text and transfer it to the target category, removing the manual part of the work from volunteers. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

How much times I already stated this? These messy QI galleries should be deleted. Instead, QI categories (by country, by subject) should be used and maintained much more actively. I really don't understand why most of QI nominators ignore that. Whereas me, XRay, Halavar, Code and some very few other users do, the big rest (including not only unexperienced newbees but also some longstanding QI nominators like Ermell, Charlesjsharp, The Photographer, or Martin Falbisoner) categorize their QI's in user categories like "Quality images by xxx" but never to QI by country, by city, or by subject. Can they tell me why not? And yes, there should be a bot solution for that. There should be something like Martinvl suggested above — not for that obsolete galleries, but for categories. Nominating a picture only with a category, and the bot adds the QI seal AND the category to the picture. --A.Savin 16:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I don't know why you are accusing me. When I upload an image I put it into a species gallery and a location category such as Category:Birds of Neverneverland. I never been asked to add a gallery to Category:Quality images of Neverneverland. It is not mentioned, as far as I can see, in the QI guidelines, so why do you start such an offensive action? It does not seem warranted. If you wish to change the QI process, then do so, but otherwise please don't mention me as someone who doesn't do thinngs properly. Charles (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Offensive? Wow, just wow. --A.Savin 23:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

+1 Please b) and every day with a QI promotion a hint to put the QI images into QI categories by subject and by city/country. (Mein Englisch. :-( Einfach mit jeder Benachrichtigung auf der Diskussionsseite auch mal ein klarer Hinweis, die Bilder auch in passende QI-Kategorien einzusortieren.) --XRay ^talk 19:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

b! And sorry, I really wasn't aware of the mess I helped create here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Martinvl your suggestion would be similar to FPC? Good idea. --Smial (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Smial: - Yes (I hadn't realised that origianlly). If the basic software is already there and tested, there should be no problem in reusing it. Martinvl (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What to do next? I'm not very familar with commons proceedings in such cases. Can we simply ask Dschwen to rewrite the bot? Do we need a poll before? --Smial (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Still the same procedure as every year. Nothing happens. A lot of images waiting for categorization - sorry, galleries. No hint at the discussion pages with the promoted photographs. Most of the nominators doesn't know what's to do after promotion. It's sad. --XRay ^talk 07:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Dschwen is the only one who could do anything about it and he has been long time not interested in QI. Maybe there should be a possibility of "hostile takeover" of a bot in such cases. ;) --A.Savin 13:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this is asking the wrong question and making unreasonable demands of users. Our category system is broken and unsuitable for images. Nobody else uses categories for images like on Commons. The intersection of categories should be done by software at query time, not by photographers wasting their precious time on earth duplicating existing database information in endless ways. We spend enough time considering if an image is of a person, an event, a location, taken on a date, by a photographer, etc, without also adding "Quality images of people", "Quality images of festivals", "Quality images in Paris", "Quality images by Colin", and "Quality images taken at 21:15 on the second Saturday in June 2016 with a waxing crescent moon". Add these categories if you find them useful, but please don't expect anyone else to share the enthusiasm for them. -- Colin (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Just curious: how would it be possible to add categories "by software at query time" with the same result as when they have been added by a human user in a correct way? --A.Savin 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking for the duplicate info to be added as a category. We have category "Quality image" and we have an infinity of other categories one can insterset with this such as "London Transport buses" to get "Quality images of London Transport buses" at query time. If one adds that category by hand, this breaks the rules of database design where duplication is discouraged as it is both unnecessary and also leads to inconsistencies. Should someone later correct the category of an image to "Clydeside Scottish Routemasters" then there's no issue with the "Quality images of London Transport buses" category disagreeing with that. It's pretty mad that we have all these bizarre deeply nested categories that just make it hard to maintain or to find anything (like hiding inside "London Buses bus V3 (A103 SUU)"). -- Colin (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Mediawiki is becoming obsolete software. WMF executives are continuously searching for ways to drive mediawiki in a leaner, strategic and more optimized direction, however without any real contact with the community. This mediawiki problem is not only consumes WMF staffing, it also drains scarce users for category maintenance and wasting time in bureaucratic contributions to a dangerous ripple effect of revenue leakage across community operations. Mediawiki was written many years ago and not designed for the new technologies like IA and Ajax. wikimedia commons community has multiple pages open on their browser to access categories and complete daily a rudimentary categorization task. Also, mediawiki is not “user” configurable, some improvements in usability and common activities require programming by outside using "add-ons" or plugins from community users or some wmf internal IT people. Each year Jimmy is still asking for a annual maintenance fees (Which is basically spent on maintenance stuff with no real impact on the software). Also, mediawiki updates are not done w ith the approval of the community, it is usually an automatic process expensive and disruptive (Like visual editor and wikipedia media viewer). --The Photographer 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)