Open main menu

Commons talk:Quality images candidates


Again: downsized candidatesEdit

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

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

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

  • Remember that this is from Commons:Image guidelines shared by both FPC and QIC, and one would expect FPC to be more strict than QIC. In practice it has never been a strict requirement; for example most of Diliff's panos are downsampled (otherwise they'd be something on the order of 30,000 x 20,000 pixels), yet garner near-unanimous support at FPC. The spirit of the guideline is to prevent loss of information, and it could very well be that when using a weak lens (e.g. a film-era ultrazoom), there is not much resolution to begin with, and it will not resolve significantly more detail when used on a 36 MP sensor than on a 12 MP sensor. In that case, I wouldn't mind if they downsampled to 12 MP to satisfy the pixel-peepers. -- King of ♠ 02:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, but in fact the phrasing of the guidelines make no difference between QIC an FPC concerning downsampling except images of living people. Other exceptions aren´t mentioned, where downsampling is allowed. Current reason for my new advance was File:2019_-_Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_03.jpg among the current candidates. A great picture with FP potential. But it has been scaled down for more sharpness. This is strictly against the current version of the rules. Don´t you or anybody see any need for action for a new version of the rules? --Milseburg (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Milseburg that's a 25MP image taken on a 21MP camera. So likely stitched, cropped and perhaps downsized a bit. Ask yourself: if this photographer had instead taken a single shot on their camera, and submitted it here, we'd have only 21MP and probably softer when pixel peeping. Ok, so perhaps if they had not downsized it would be even bigger. And if they only had a 12MP camera, the image would still look just as good on your monitor, but less detail when pixel peeping. So if the 12MP image could be a QI, why are you complaining about a 25MP image. There's only so much the "rules" can do to encourage people not to downsize, and most people are not that bothered unless folk are downsizing to 4 or 6MP silliness. The "rules" can't be written to handle all cases, and if they are too prescriptive and detailed then some folk will take that as a guide to downsize all their photos or we get arguments about the thresholds rather than just trying to use common sense. Common sense tells you this is a high resolution image that is very sharp. It's a QI. If you would like the creator to submit a larger size, why don't you just ask nicely rather than saying it is needed for the rules. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I did not understand your point of view. What speaks against an adaptation of the guidelines? The example is a landscape shot and a standard case. The current rule should support promotion, but it does not. --Milseburg (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Again, COM:IG is not a rule. It says right there on the page: "Happy nominating, happy judging, and remember…rules can be broken." Different people can have different opinions, and while this has unfortunately led to some lack of consistency in judging QICs, it has worked very well at FPC, where the criteria are whatever voters believe them to be. -- King of ♠ 21:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Obviously you understand "guidline" here as a rule, that prescribes the handling of a thing, but does not contain the compulsion to adhere to it. If no one here join into the discussion also wants more reliability and less arbitrary, then that is probably generally wanted and there is no serious need to discuss about non-obligations and everybody continou doing what he wants to do. --Milseburg (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This rule has always been nonsense when it has been interpreted stubbornly. There are already several exceptions for motifs that are technically difficult to photograph, such as sports or stage photography under adverse lighting conditions. Other exceptions apply to stitching and correction of distortions of the lens or perspective used. I'd be very happy if we could phrase something there with "not excessive" or "reasonable" or "meaningful". --Smial (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

To get your picture promoted...Edit

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

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

No quality images of Houston?Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hi the image

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

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

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

Please delist...Edit

Return to the project page "Quality images candidates".