Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Closing CR

Have I missed a discussion or a consent regarding setting the QI-Result-Template? Has it become customary not to sign the template when setting it? -- Smial (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Subdivisions to "People"

Hi there,
since nobody seem to answer there I will try here again:

Mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of new pictures arriving from the concert photography in the last weeks and hopefully also for the next months and due to the fact that I get a script error every time I open Commons:Quality_images/Subject/People I would like to propose to install at least three subdivions for the people category of QI:

1. Portraits in Concert photography
2. Portraits in Sports photography
3. Other Portrait

What do you think about this? Are there any problems with this kind of subdivisions and if not not how would it be proceeded? -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Achim Raschka, the QI images are categorized here, you can create this kind of gallery : Commons:Quality_images/Subject/People/Concerts, move manualy the relevant images from Commons:Quality_images/Subject/People to the new sub-gallery and ask the QIbot operator to modify the QI categorization tool for it integrates the new gallery. -- Christian Ferrer 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Christian Ferrer: I would think that there would be a discussion needed - but I am also satisfied if nobody oppose and I can start with it. I will wait until thusday to do this, thank you for the how-to. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Few people are involved in the categorization of the images recently promoted and even less in the maintenance of the galleries. -- Christian Ferrer 20:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I tried to categorize the recently promoted QIs many times, but it simply didn't work. I don't know if that's a browser problem or whatever but the script however doesn't seem very user-friendly to me. Maybe I just didn't understand how to use it properly. --Code (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Zensur

Seit wann gibt es hier Zensur und wer ist berechtigt Zensur zu üben? Siehe den Edit von Mattbuck, heute 19:17 Uhr. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Äh, hat er doch sogleich selber revertiert und sich entschuldigt. -- Smial (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wo? Ich hatte nur gesehen, dass es irgendwann irgendjemand revertiert haben musste. Da er es tatsächlich selbst war, ist die Sache in Ordnung. Aber anscheinend saß es doch in ihm drin, endlich mal dem Spurzem eins draufzugeben. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

In der Zusammenfassung seines ersten Edits steht „(Reverted edits by Spurzem (talk) to last revision by Berthold Werner)“. Die Meldung erscheint bei einem Revert. Er hat also nicht bewußt Text von dir gelöscht, sondern in der Versionsgeschichte den Revert-Link getroffen. Ist mir auch schon passiert, ist peinlich, aber kein Grund, eine böse Absicht zu unterstellen. --Kreuzschnabel 21:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mediocre Quality Images

This short excerpt from the CR on File:Zillebeke (3).JPG illustrates perfectly what I’m feeling about QIC:

•  Support with all due respect, @Kreuzschnabel: , but these artifacts are acceptable für QI. At least for me. Crucify me now for that! ;-) --Hubertl 22:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Something like that wasn’t considered acceptable when I joined QIC back in 2012. Obviously, the quality of digital photography has deteriorated significantly in the meantime. My fault not to notice. --Kreuzschnabel 08:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There were times when it was not possible for such a nomination to stand on CR status nearly uncommented for days (and this one is about to pass soon). No more interest to participate in CR from all the regulars I used to see here? --Kreuzschnabel 08:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That should never pass QI. I'm not on my usual monitors, so can't do a proper review, but just looking at that noise/artifaction... -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

QI promoted twice

I just got a notification that File:2015 Chinese New Year Fashion Show, Sudirman Street, Yogyakarta, 2015-02-15 02.jpg was promoted to QI. Nice to know... except that it had already been promoted on 20 February 2015 as well (QIC archives; my talk page archives). I look into it, and it turns out the file was nominated by Kadellar (archive here), as the QI bot had never tagged the image previously. My question: is there a way to prevent such double nominations from happening? Maybe a failsafe for the bot, in case it malfunctions or edit conflicts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Crisco 1492, now at least it is really promoted. I don't know why the bot failed. I'm going to nominate this picture now at FPC. --Kadellar (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Vectorization of images not made by Wikimedians

Hi,

Those files were promoted as QI :

• File:ALSEP Solar Wind Spectrometer numbered.svg (Vectorization of a NASA image)
• File:Changing_composition_molten_salt_reactor_numbered.svg (Source : [1])
• File:Structure_of_the_magnetosphere_numbered.svg (Vectorization of [2])
• File:Stomach colon rectum diagram numbered.svg (Vectorization of [3])
• File:Neutron star cross section numbered.svg (Vectorization of [4])
• File:Moons_of_solar_system_numbered.svg (Vectorizazion of [5])
• File:Kuiper_belt_-_Oort_cloud_numbered.svg (Vectorization of [6])

Does vectorization / derivative work of images not made by Wikimedians meet the QI guidelines ?

Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends, maybe, it's not trivial to get this right. I recall your last two examples, there were several rounds of fix invalid SVG, get a smaller embedded raster image, try VI after QI timeout, and QI renomination—some delays caused by me. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing QI-Label for three non-Commoner images

There are several images, where the QI promotions should be removed:

• File:Nádraží Meziměstí 7.jpg, Photographer: Viktor Zerzán
• File:Nádraží Meziměstí 10.jpg, Photographer: Viktor Zerzán
• File:Nádraží_Náchod_9.jpg, Photographer: Viktor Zerzán

The nominator of the photos is Daniel Holý. Obviously, he uploaded the work of the photographer Viktor Zerzán with OTRS permission. Though this is a correct procedure regarding the copyright status in Commons, it is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC, as the photographer is not a Commoner.

I will remove the labels after 24 hours, if no proof of eligibility will be submitted. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing research. I think we should as well say thanks to Daniel Holý for his efforts and apologize for not noticing earlier. --Kreuzschnabel 11:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Renominating after decline

At the moment there are a lot of nominations pending again which have previously been declined. See, for example:

• File:KonzertDobson.jpg
• File:Magdeburg Skulpturenpark 2629.jpg
• File:Edificio de Correos y Telégrafos, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 01.jpg
• File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

Do we have any rules about this? I consider this as bad behaviour. In my opinion it's disrespectful in some way because it means that the nominator doesn't care about what the reviewers said before. I think if somebody believes that his nomination was declined unjustifiably he can move it to CR or simply accept the decision. Renomination without improving the picture should not be allowed, I think. --Code (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends how long it's been, and whether it was a contentious decline or not. I've renominated declined images where I think the decline reason was wrong, and it's been a year or more since decline. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was, that if it is a complete rework from scratch which eliminates all former, resolvable issues, it could be ok. However, as we already have a CR procedure, it is still kind of smelly and I feel that opening this gate will end up in a renomination loop. So for the sake of clear rules, I opt for a strict denial of renominations after a decline. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Now User:Ailura is trying to force a previously declined image against my explicit advise to wait for a discussion and decision. This is indeed extremly disrespectful ... --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The picture i nominated was declined more than two years ago without discussion and without technical reason, so i wanted to catch up on the cr discussion. I also uploaded a new version. As it was declined before, i don't think one vote should be enough anyway. Thank you for your advice, but (as mattbuck said above) other persons renominated pictures before and i don't want to redraw only because of your personal opinion on that. Nobody gets hurt if two people have a look at the same image. --Ailura (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A nomination of a reworked version one year (or more) later should be allowed. -- Smial (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just as an opinion: I think there are two main topics mixed here. The first on the question if an image was reworked after decline (then it sure may be possible to re-nominate) and the second on re-nomination of pictures that were declined without valid technical reasons given. I think the latter one is problematic because it is based sometimes only on aesthetics of the reviewer (I remember a decline of a car photo of myself only because the reviewer didn't like the modern applications on the old car - I accepted but did not understand ...). I think in this case at least a discussion should be possible. Not possible should be a re-nomination of an image critizised with valid technical points without reworking like in the recent pic of File:KonzertDobson.jpg. Some cents -- Achim Raschka (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that re-nominations should be allowed if the reasons that lead to the decline have been corrected. In my opinion this should be the only case in which we can allow a re-nomination. Is there a consensus in the community to add this to the rules? @Cccefalon: could you live with that solution? --Code (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not what Achim said and also not my opinion. So this is no consensus. --Ailura (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And will you be so kind to tell us what your opinion is? And what Achim in your eyes really wanted to say? --Code (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my eyes, Achim said that a discussion should be possible, if pictures were declined without technical reasons.--Ailura (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm open to any consensus. For facilitating the necessary decisions, such a renomination has to be tagged with "(renominated)". However, I feel that we should add a one-year ban on renomination to avoid, that it will be abused as a court of appeal. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Tagging renominated pictures definitely makes sense. In my opinion, one declining vote can not be enough for blocking a picture (but the picture then probably would have to go into CR). If there was a decision in a review process (and if the uploader was aware of that), it's a different situation. --Ailura (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it's a reworking that actually addresses the reason for the decline, then renomination is perfectly fine (a note should be included that it is a renomination). If the image is not reworked, then the nominator should be able to renominate it directly to CR, with the previous oppose vote intact (mirroring what would happen if the nominator had caught the decline within 48 hours and sent it to CR). CR declines should not be appealable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally contrary I never proposed a photo declined and never will. --LivioAndronico talk 08:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolution and easy taken photographs

Sorry for the additionaly answer to the reviews of File:Recke, St.-Dionysius-Kirche -- 2014 -- 9705 -- Ausschnitt.jpg in german, my knowledge of the english language isn't good enough for this kind of comment: Irgendwie möchte ich das so nicht stehen lassen, ganz unabhängig davon, dass ich die Kritik und das Contra natürlich einsehe. Ich möchte aber doch anhand des Bilds für ein wenig Verständnis für die Fotografinnen und Fotografen werben, die hier Luftaufnahmen nominieren - auch im Hinblick auf die Regel "reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily". Das Bild ist ein Ausschnitt von File:Recke, St.-Dionysius-Kirche -- 2014 -- 9705.jpg und schon auf der größtmöglichen Auflösung. Zugegeben, das ist recht wenig. Was mich irritiert ist der Wunsch oder die Regel, dass mehr Auflösung erwartet wird, wenn dies quasi leicht zu bewerkstelligen wäre. Meine Erfahrung bei den Fotoflügen für Wikipedia war, dass keine Aufnahme wirklich leicht zu machen war. Allein das unruhige Flugzeug, das offene Fenster, das große Gebiet, die hohe Fluggeschwindigkeit und der Dunst in der Luft setzen Grenzen. (Ich könnte mir so im Nachhinein auch bessere Rahmenbedingungen vorstellen.) Der Ausschnitt hier wurde mit 1/1.250 s bei einer Brennweite von 135 mm belichtet. Das war das Maximum meines Zooms. (Spätere Flüge zeigten, dass schon 135 mm grenzwertig sind, bei 200 mm ging auch mit noch kürzerer Belichtungszeit nicht mehr viel.) Die Erfahrung aus den Flügen zeigt, dass diese Belichtungszeit durchaus lang ist, wohl auch ein Grund für die Unschärfe. Bei diesem Bild kommt nachteilig noch hinzu, dass das Motiv geschätzt 1,5 bis 2 Kilometer entfernt war. Seht es mir bitte nach, dass ich diesen Umstand hier zumindest begründen wollte. Dass es zu unscharf ist, ist als Grund für ein Contra nachzuvollziehen und einzusehen. Es ist wohl bei meiner Auswahl mit hineingerutscht. Sorry dafür. Die Auflösung allein empfinde ich nicht ausreichend als Ablehnungsgrund. Bei Aufnahmen, die man wirklich vergleichsweise ohne größere Schwierigkeiten anfertigen kann, ist die Forderung nach einem "Mehr" jedoch durchaus berechtigt. --XRay ^talk 16:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In other words: Achieving high quality in aerial photography is a hell of a lot more difficult than it would be from a fixed platform at the same position. Imagine riding a plate compactor mounted on a mechanical bull mounted on a Ferrari going at full speed ;-) That's of course wildly exaggerated, but tune it down to about 10% and it's about what you can expect – still bad enough. Also, soil moisture is a BIG issue for sharpness. It's crazy, basic rules of thumb that work fine on the ground seem to change dramatically up there, so that's really something that should be taken into consideration. --El Grafo (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC) PS: For a helicopter, remove the Ferrari but double the plate compactor. For a glider, remove the plate compactor but double the mechanical bull. For a hot air balloon, replace all of the three by a litter and tell the carriers to go wherever they'd like to.

Or very short: Easy is relative. --XRay ^talk 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

…and QIC is a lottery. The background info for this extracted image is only noted on the original, easy to miss in a review unless you mentioned it explicitly. Nothing against the small photo, but after I've looked at both I like your original better, there are more interesting details triggering my imagination. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Time to say goodbye

I haven’t felt well in QI for some time now. It’s not for the undiscerning reviewers promoting any nomination as long as there’s something visible in it. It’s rather because the more serious regulars who used to be here don’t stand together IMHO to keep standards up. Some nominations of clearly below-threshold pictures have passed or nearly passed CR recently because no one opposed.

Then, I wonder why hardly anyone of the regulars has been voting for my nomination which has been on CR for almost three weeks now. Only answer I can think of is that it’s really much worse than I think it is but nobody wants to tell me so, so I’d expect my reviews to be similar off standards here.

Sorry to say the green seal is no longer marking an image of high quality for me. It may as well mark an image taken in the street the reviewer lives in, or of some place and/or by an author the reviewer is fond of, however its visual quality may be. --Kreuzschnabel 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Auf Widersehen --LivioAndronico talk 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"WiEdersehen". Schade. But I agree and understand.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remember :-/ There are many different reasons to leave, I know that well. Maybe a break can help. -- Smial (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Too bad, I appreciate your advice. To see you again later--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Kreuzschnabel, vielleicht warst Du manchmal ein bisschen zu kritisch. Trotzdem: Bleib nicht zu lange weg; Du fehlst. Herzliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with your photo. Between "bandwidth at modem speed", when I can't even load the QIC page, and some obscure FPXs (+guess what else) I didn't look at any QI/FP candidates or CRs for weeks, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I usually avoid the recent nominations and clean out the old ones when I do my reviews. Not everyone is comfortable reviewing images that may be borderline which is why they fail to be reviewed in a timely manner. However, I've recently taken a hiatus from QIC, so that might be contributing as well. Losing a reviewer or two makes a difference in review speed. -- Ram-Man 14:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please replace File:Clay minoan model -restored- of a house, 2700 BCE.jpg

{{Edit request}} This page is protected while posting this message. Please replace File:Clay minoan model -restored- of a house, 2700 BCE.jpg with File:Clay minoan model -restored- of a house, 1600 BCE.jpg because File renamed: File renaming criterion #1: Prośba przesyłającego plikwrong date Thank you. Message by MediaWiki:Gadget-GlobalReplace.js -- Wieralee (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Protected page

Can someone please explain why the Project Page is protected at the moment (no edits are possible), yet some nominators are still posting QI candidates. Thank you. --Charles (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The candidates are transcluded from Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, which is not protected. Hence, nominating, voting, etc. still works as usual. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --Charles (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Request

Since I can't renominate my three current nominations due to the 4-megapixel rule, can someone else please review them before they get removed? --Jakob (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolution in QI

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please continue the discussion at Commons:Quality images candidates/Proposal to change the guidelines Jee 03:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Probably what I'm to say is stupid, but I find the lower limit of 2 mpx something really useless! I think the limit should be at least and at least say 4MPX. Guys we have cameras for at least minimum 12 mpx and we evaluate 2 mpx photo? For me evaluate photos from a definition so small is unnerving and often lack the details. What do you say? Please forward the massacre --LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not 8 MPix as minimal resolution? This would enable us to remove hundreds of low quality images from outdated DSLR like Nikon's D1, D2, D100 and all these crappy 6-mpixel-generation cameras. -- Smial (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Smial. The limit should be 8 Megapixels. --Code (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering the development in camera technique, I also think, that the 2 MPix threshold is too low. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

+1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• It isn't just the out-of-camera resolution that matters. Cropping an image can drastically reduce MP. So a 12/14MP camera is only 8/9MP in square crop and much less if you crop more. Photographs of birds and other distant animals tend to be heavily cropped (or are soft because a consumer telephoto lens isn't that sharp, and so may be downsized to appear sharp). So I would still permit a wildlife photo to be lower than I would a portrait, product, architecture or landscape photo. You need around 5-6 MP to print 300dpi at A4 (the size of a magazine). A 5MP image is still larger than a 27 or 32" standard monitor, or iPad can display (4K monitors are not yet mainstream). So my recommendation is 5MP with some allowance for wildlife images. But not retrospective -- old QI should be removed only if the actual image quality is poor. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, we will not remove old promotions in the light of a new qualification standard. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'm agree,the olds can stay --LivioAndronico talk 12:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO new rules can't affect older already promoted images. That would be a bad way. But we can start as soon as possible with more than 2 mpx. Next month Wiki Loves Earth 2015 will happen and this is a good time to start. --XRay ^talk 14:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Btw, you can enhance your image-description page to show megapixels if you add the code from here to your vector.js. -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

8 mpx may be difficult if the image is cropped.--XRay ^talk 13:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another reason not supporting at least 8 mpx: Older images or images taken by older cameras. But please vote! IMO the lower limit of 4 mpx is very useful. --XRay ^talk 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also need the opinion of: @Lmbuga: @Pleclown: @Lewis Hulbert: @Spurzem: @Johann Jaritz: @Llez: @ArildV: @Jacek Halicki: @Hubertl: @Berthold Werner: @Famberhorst: @Slaunger: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Jebulon: @Ram-Man: @Poco a poco: @Cayambe: @Christian Ferrer: @Isiwal: @Crisco 1492: @Daniel Case: Sorry if I forgot someone...--LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Come on guys, we have to provide quality photos and with 2 mp do not think that is provided. I also agree that 8 MP resolution are excellent but there are good cameras ,like the Canon EOS 5D,that makes great photos but has just 12 MPs and with a crop is probably under the 8mp.Honestly 8 mp for me are too many --LivioAndronico talk 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Voting ( voting is closed now)

Ok we can do in this way:

Who wants to stay with 2 mpx

Discussion and votes for 2 MPix

Support Of course my comment above was intended as a joke. -- Smial (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I believe that no one has understood, however, would not be a bad idea --LivioAndronico talk 14:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Not the expensive camera makes good photos. Therefore it is not a good idea to call for 4, 5, 8 or more mpx. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Not everyone owns a $10,000 camera. --Jakob (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Come on, be serious: Canon EOS Rebel T5 EF-S 18-55mm IS II Digital SLR Kit, 18 MPix, 399 US$ --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC) just for the say CEphoto, Uwe Aranas I don't take the 18-55 even if given --LivioAndronico talk 19:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Jakob and Lothar Spurzem I have a Nikon D3200with a 18-105 (24 mpx) for 400 € + 50mm for 150 € + filters for 28 € = Total 578 € --LivioAndronico talk 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) I have only a Canon EOS 550D. That must be enough for me. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support All users may be able to upload good photos to Commons, not only who owns expensive cameras Ezarateesteban 20:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support This kind of image have less than 3mpx however it has a better quality than most of the images in the current QI archives IMO. It is maybe an old image from 2010 however it is still a QI for me, and for who don't think like me : try to do better yourself. -- Christian Ferrer 21:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Ralf Roleček 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose - We've been demanding 2MP since I started coming to QIC about six years ago. Camera technology has moved on considerably - back in 2006 2MP meant a DSLR, now pretty much any mobile phone can take photos of 2MP. While I don't think we need to advance too far, 2MP is a bit ridiculous as a QI now that most monitors show 2MP and some TVs do 4MP. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Read above --LivioAndronico talk 08:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support I have a 32 Mpixel camera and still find the 2 Mpx limit appropriate. Four reasons: i) cropping a picture is sometimes a necessity, especially when it is not possible to get closer to the subject (e.g. macrophotography); ii) nothing in the rules prevents a larger picture from being downsampled. And if the apparent quality after the process is acceptable, why should it not be considered a QI? iii) illustrations are often made in lower resolutions; iv) why shouldn't a picture taken with an old/cheap/mobile phone camera be not allowed to participate? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC) But at least we must be serious .... even my nokia e90 has a camera to 3.2 in 2007 !!! But what means this oppositions ... boh, here we are going to a pharmacy --LivioAndronico talk 13:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Fine in 2006, not almost 10 years later Poco2 12:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC) @ Mattbuck and LivioAndronico: Please bear in mind that not all users can buy a new camera every year. And read what Alvesgaspar says. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Lothar Spurzem since 2006 make camera for at least 6 megapixels (for example Nikon D40 or Canon EOS 300D that in Italy used cost about 150 euro !!![7]) ! Can you do see me at least one user in QI uses a camera older more of 11 years ago? Here we have to divide between those who upload photos of commons and who up photo for QI! Who has a passion for photography and who makes for fun! We must provide the best images possible otherwise what we ere doing? Anyone can simply upload photos but we have to provide quality photos and for this you need a quality camera and wisdom! This is my opinion,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) @Spurzem: Every year? I don't buy a camera every three years, let alone every year, and I actually care about photography. The fact is, almost every camera made in the past 10 years can do 6MP at least. Lots of smartphones have a camera of at least 6MP. Asking for 4MP is hardly disastrous as to the number of images that get nominated. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Fine as is, but a bump to 4 MP is also acceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is in favor of at least 4 mpx

Discussion and votes for 4 MPix

Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support An alternative: At least 4 mpx (must), but recommended 8 mpx (should, not must); less than 8 mpx can't be a reason for declining. --XRay talk 13:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC) in this way it gets complicated, I would say at least 4 then it is logical that it is better 8,10,20,30 --LivioAndronico talk 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Comment While I agree that 2MP is too low, 4MP is the absolute maximum that I would support as the requirement. A number of my featured pictures would not qualifiy (see A, B, and C). I am not in favor of higher, especially for high DoF macro where diffraction often limits the effective resolution to ~6MP anyway. Most of my featured pictures are 4MP to 8MP. An expertly taken 4MP image is superior to an average 16MP image. -- Ram-Man 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Then you are in favor --LivioAndronico talk 14:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Only with reservation. We'll probably end up rejecting some perfectly good photos that should be accepted (like my examples), but it will be an overall benefit. If this is treated sensibly to allow reasonable exceptions, then it should be fine. I also agree with XRay that we really should be expecting 8MP, with reasonable allowances for less. -- Ram-Man 14:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Today 2 MPix is a hard limit and it works fine. If you introduce a higher limit with exceptions, you will end up with endless discussions wether a special subject allows less resolution or not. Some reviewers at QIC are not able to recognize the difference between longitudal CA and lateral CA, some sunshine photogrphers have difficulties to acccept high ISO shots at low light, some stickler always insist on 100% verticalization, no matter how terrible the result looks like. In this environment, I would not like to add another fuzzy condition with exceptions. Absolute useless proposal. Smial (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Any proposal is useful and welcome Smial,I thanks Ram-Man, this is democracy that I like,and I like the respect for the opinions of others. The things useless are the controversy. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said: I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it--LivioAndronico talk 18:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Though I still think some wildlife photos could be exceptions to this requirement. -- Colin (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support - Most, if not all, cameras currently on the market should be able to put out a good quality image at 4 MP. 8 MP is a nice target, I think, but most Canon cameras won't be able to reach that if you have to crop a wildlife image (for instance). Well, unless we all buy 5DSes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support 4 mpx.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support OK for IMO the lower limit of 4 mpx is very useful... 8 megapixel limit seems difficult to achieve, at least to be equipped with an expensive camera, difficult to acquire especially for young people.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support 5 Mpx is also OK. 8Mpx too much for certain kind of topics involving wild life or macro photography. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Seems appropriate. 2MP can fail to fill quite a few monitors today. --DXR (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose See my support vote above (I can accept if there is allowance for wildlife photos to be less) -- Christian Ferrer 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Ralf Roleček 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support with exceptions for wildlife. Yann (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Ezarateesteban 23:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --ArildV (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I bought my 38 MP Nikon and a high quality prime lens for $ 60  Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose per my comment in the 2 mpx section. --Jakob (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose see above. -- Smial (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support My preference is 8 MP but 4 MP is for sure better than the current threshold Poco2 12:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Hubertl (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support My preference is 8 MP but 4 or 5 MP are still better than the current threshold. --Code (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support with exceptions for wildlife and non-photographic images. There are probably other exceptions that should be made; those can be handled on a case-by-case basis. (Any ideas? One way we could go is to make the 4 MP a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule; reviewers should decline images under 4 MP without mitigating factors, but they can promote an image if they feel it was particularly difficult to make. Alternatively, we could enforce the rule more strongly and require a consensus to allow images under 4 MP, e.g. the nominator must submit such images directly to CR.) I would also suggest that reviewers downsample all high-resolution images to 4 MP before reviewing; it is unfortunate that D800 images are being declined because the 24-70 f/2.8, one of the best lenses on the market, is not pixel-sharp on the corners at 36 MP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is in favor of at least 5 mpx

Discussion and votes for 5 MPix

Support With allowance for wildlife photos to be less. -- Colin (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose See my support vote above (I can accept if there is allowance for wildlife photos to be less) -- Christian Ferrer 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Ralf Roleček 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Yann (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --Hubertl (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Neutral --Isiwal (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose No significant difference to 4 mpx --XRay talk 06:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk)  Oppose per my comment in the 2 mpx section. --Jakob (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose see above --Smial (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support Poco2 12:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support My preference is 8 MP but 4 or 5 MP are still better than the current threshold. --Code (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is in favor of at least 8 mpx

Discussion and votes for 8 MPix

Support I'm happy that you bring up this point Livio, 2 MP was the threshold in 2006, 4 MP should have been the threshold in 2010, in 2015 I feel that 8 MP is what I'd expect for a quality image. Poco2 14:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support, however I will also support a move to 5 or 4 MPix. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Support, however I will also support a move to 5 or 4 MPix. --Lmbuga (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Here, 60 cameras with at least 14 MP and for less than 200€. Here 20 cameras with more than 16 MP, interchangeable lens and for less than 400€--Lmbuga (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks Lmbuga --LivioAndronico talk 19:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Even an old 6MP DSLR will beat any compact or cameraphone with 20MP sensor in terms of overall picture quality. Your list has either compact cameras that will nearly always fail QI on quality grounds, or body-only cameras that require another 200€+ spent on a decent lens in order to take a QI. Not everyone buys or can afford a new camera so I would oppose restrictions that make it hard for someone with a 12MP DSLR. This isn't a forum for Europeans with 200€ - 600€ burning a hole in their pockets. It's a forum to select images that our re-users will find usefully high quality. For "web use" we already meet that standard. For print I'd say 4-5MP is the right level, though even then there are plenty situations where a small photo is absolutely all that is required. QI is too fixated on details one can find in the EXIF file or with a magnifying glass, and not with whether the actual image is a quality one. -- Colin (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Far too much for small subjects in macro wildlife photography. -- Christian Ferrer 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Christian Ferrer you what minimum resolution support? --LivioAndronico talk 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Too much, excludes decent enough cameras like D40s, D70s or just slightly cropped D80s. Such cameras can make great images, excluding them for lack of res is a waste, especially since such res exceeds most realistic uses for wikimedia images. --DXR (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Ok DXR,you what minimum resolution support? --LivioAndronico talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Excuse me,I had not read --LivioAndronico talk 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC) No problem :-) . A camera that can't get you 4MP will not be good enough for QI on all other standards, but the older DSLRs that I described can do that, but not 8MP. You know that I am happy to contribute big images (when I have the time to shoot them, again), but looking at beginners and contributers on a really tight budget, excluding cameras that can serve us well and can be bought really cheap is not a good idea, imo. --DXR (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC) It is certain, I agree with you DXR ,but I know that Llez,Benh,Colin and Diliff will take minimum 15 mp (I joke )--LivioAndronico talk 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose - 8MP is a bit high I think. While yes most high-end cameras will now take 16MP or so (iirc that's what I shoot at), it doesn't take much cropping to reduce it to 10MP or lower. Size that down to cameras which can't take more than 12MP, or 10, and we're getting rid of a lot of good images. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Ralf Roleček 22:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Yann (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Ezarateesteban 23:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Isiwal (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Too much for cropped images. --XRay talk 06:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose per my comment in the 2 mpx section. --Jakob (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose see above --Smial (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Support We could talk about exceptions for cropped pictures (birds, wildlife and so on) but normal pictures of landscapes and architecture, portrait, street and studio photographs should have 8 MP. However I will also support a move to 5 or 4 MP. --Code (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Oppose Absolutely not. I am of the view that any DSLR is capable of producing QI-level images, and this would exclude cameras such as the D40 and D70. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Results

The voting was closed April 13, 8:30 UTC. The result - in order of numbers of votes - is:

For 4 MP:

20  Support and 6  Oppose and 1  Neutral= Total +14 (with 3 exception requests for wildlife)

For 2 MP:

8  Support and 4  Oppose = Total +4

For 5 MP:

5  Support and 7  Oppose and 1  Neutral = Total -2

For 8 MP:

4  Support and 13  Oppose = Total -9

Extended content to voting process

I think that most of the reviews said their opinion. Now as you do? I would propose 4 MP with exception only for photos wildlife.For me it is a good compromise. Ok people:@Lmbuga: @Pleclown: @Lewis Hulbert: @Spurzem: @Johann Jaritz: @Llez: @ArildV: @Jacek Halicki: @Hubertl: @Berthold Werner: @Famberhorst: @Slaunger: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Jebulon: @Ram-Man: @Poco a poco: @Cayambe: @Christian Ferrer: @Isiwal: @Crisco 1492: @Daniel Case: @Yann: @Cccefalon: @XRay: @Isiwal: @Colin: @Ralf Roletschek: @Ezarate: @Mattbuck: @Smial: Sorry if I forgot someone and sorry if I hurry, but this thing, as mattbuck said, going on since 2006! and as said XRay :"Next month Wiki Loves Earth 2015". It's time to freshen up.--LivioAndronico talk 08:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I think, the result is pretty clear. We should invoke the 4MPix rule by tomorrow. I will update the orange banner tonight. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I think the same --LivioAndronico talk 09:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I just have to add, that subtracting the oppose votes is not correct, as we started with a support voting for different categories. Subtracting makes only sense, when every one has to support/oppose in every category. Well, the result would be just even more clear and is not changing the general opinion, that we should increase the threshold. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)  Comment 24h is a bit short for a vote. Waiting for a few days won't do any harm. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC) As far as I see have almost all regulars in QIC casted their vote. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Sure Yann, but most (if not all) have argued, even if you wait a week have already voted for the vast majority --LivioAndronico talk 09:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Is such a vote restricted to "regulars"? I think waiting for 3-4 days would be better (until Monday?). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC) We can wait a few days, the rules have been with us for at least six years, there's no rush. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Ok Monday morning at 8,30...a week end for think :) --LivioAndronico talk 11:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Sorry guys, I was a little busy the last 24 hours. Can I still vote? --Code (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Sure --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The voting results in a majority of votes for a minimum resolution of 4 Megapixels. As the todays nominations already started, the rule will be effective starting tomorrow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To do

Some steps are still to do:

• Updating announcement line ( Done by --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Updating the section "Resolution" in the QIC Guidelines.  Done Yann (talk) 09:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
• Updating the java script of QIVoter helper

--CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CEphoto, Uwe Aranas --LivioAndronico talk 09:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment These changes do not take into account the requested exceptions for special photographic cases by some voters. -- Smial (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This should be part of the pending guideline update --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Right. Yann (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Aftermath comments of users

Great, so i'm completely out of this using a D3 or D4 and having any need to crop for sports photography. Thanks for the fish. --Ailura (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a D3 or/and a D4? Lucky you. If you check the specification of your camera, you would see that the resolution is 12.0 effective megapixels for a D3 (4,256 × 2,832), and 16.4 effective megapixels (4928 × 3280 pixels) for a D4, well above the requirements. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems you have a lot of experience in sports photography. --Ailura (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you are complaining. Most of your sport images are above 4 Mpx. File:20140905 U21 AUT BIH 0880.JPG, File:Emanuel Pogatetz 8990.JPG, File:20130814 AT-GR Marko Arnautovic 2499.jpg, File:Severin Widmer and Yann Guyader.JPG. Yann (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Wildlife has an exception. Sports has exactly the same issues, prime lenses, movement, cropping. Hence, we need the same rules. --Ailura (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Most sport submissions here in the recent past had at least 4 MPix. Don't cry, go with the flow. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Kein Problem, wohin kann ich dir meine Kontonummer mailen? Oder gleich die Lieferadresse für die neue Kamera? --Ailura (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As already mentioned above: The new rule replaces a working rule (hard limit at 2 MPixels with the option to demand higher resolutions for easy-to-take photos) by a rule, where now and in future every other day a discussion about exceptions will arise. That's the way you wanted it. -- Smial (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for being grumpily. We had a voting with a clear majority to a move to 4 megapixels. Not a single day with the new rule passed now and you are not willing to give it a try? That's bad spirit. We will perhaps lose some few QI worthy images, but finally, it will be a benefit for QIC. Forget about your alleged camera limitations and start the challenge with: The real key to good photography is not equipment but knowledge, skill, and experience. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You misunterstand my comment completely. Of course I accept the decision of the community. It's just funny to see the first discussion about exceptions from the rule. I have warned and it happened just a day (or two?) after the change. Again: The hard limit at 2MPix was a simple rule and it worked. Now we have no simple rule anymore. Above all, a problem is addressed with this bad rule that has only in comparatively few cases ever been a problem. :-) -- Smial (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are in the spirit of this process. 2MP is so low that no exceptions were allowed. It's possible we'll allow some under 4MP, but we still won't allow anything under 2MP. This doesn't mean that it wasn't right to demand 4MP for the the vast majority of images. But there are some very good < 4MP that should be exempt. Still I would expect near perfection in that case. Others may think differently, but that's ok. -- Ram-Man 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ich begreife nicht, was Megapixel mit "Quality.." zu tun haben soll. --Ralf Roleček 19:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dann hast du dich noch nicht mit der Verwendung von Fotos abseits von einfachen Büro-TFTs oder "Full HD"-Bildschirmen befaßt? Kann ich nicht glauben. Ich halte ein unteres Limit bei der Pixelzahl durchaus für notwendig und würde sogar eine leichte Anhebung unterstützen, halte nur die jetzige Umsetzung für völlig verfehlt und gegenüber den anderen QI-Kriterien für völlig nebensächlich.
Bei QIC ging es einmal vornehmlich um die nackte technische Qualität und einige, wenige, grundlegende Gestaltungsregeln. Seit geraumer Zeit geht es aber vielen anscheinend eher darum, wer den Längeren hat, wer was neues in seiner Bildbearbeitung gefunden hat, wer bissiger argumentiert, wer die kleinste Macke in einem Bild findet, vor allem aber, wer die Beurteilungsstandards setzt und damit Macht ausübt. Ich beobachte QIC schon ziemlich lange. Als es im Photoshop noch keine taugliche Rauschreduzierung gab außer stumpfem Verschmieren, hat sich niemand großartig über ein wenig Körnigkeit erregt. Als das perspektivische Entzerren noch mühsame Handarbeit war, bei dem Leute ohne Sinn und Verstand für perspektivische Gesetze groteske Verformungen produzierten, war es ähnlich. Irgendwann haben hier Leute mitbekommen, daß es noise reduction gibt und daß man Bilder korrekt nach optischen Gesetzmäßigkeiten entzerren kann - und das sogar halbautomagisch. Seitdem müssen alle Bilder glattgebügelt und zwangsvertikalisiert sein, egal, wie scheiße das Ergebnis aussieht. Es gibt ja sogar Clowns, die jegliche Skalierung ablehnen, vermutlich, weil sie dann auch noch den letzten Restfehler selbst bei hochwertigen Optiken finden können. Egal, wie scheiße... ach, das hatten wir schon. Schon mal mitbekommen, wieviel schwerer es Fotos haben, die bei Regenwetter aufgenommen wurden bzw. bei diffusem Licht? Wieviele davon als "unscharf" gecancelt werden, obwohl sie bei genauem Hinsehen absolut ok sind - nur halt nicht die Schärfe vortäuschenden harten Kontraste geblitzter Bilder oder solcher mit strahlender Sonne haben? Schon mal mitbekommen, wie oft bei High-ISO-Bildern Detailschärfe bemängelt wird, die keine derzeit käufliche Kamera liefern kann? Da wird Rauschen bei der D800 bei 6400ISO bemängelt - ja, bitte, diese Vollformat-Sony mit 12 MPixeln rauscht deutlich weniger. Hat aber keine 36 Megapickel. Wenn man nun aber die D800-Bilder geschickt auf 12 MPix herunterrechnet um etwa dasselbe Rauschniveau zu erreichen, ist das aber auch wieder unerwünscht, denn man soll ja nicht herunterskalieren. Es gibt hier zu viele Leute, die jeden Splitter im Auge des Nächsten finden, aber den Balken im eigenen nicht. Das macht den Aufenthalt in diesen Gefilden immer weniger erfreulich und erinnert mich sehr an die vergangene Entwicklung bei de:KEB, insbesondere was die Sache mit der Deutungshoheit über die Kriterien angeht. -- Smial (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Du hast vollkommen Recht. Ein Kalenderverlag hat von mir Knipsbilder einer Olympus C-220 für A3 angenommen. Die haben wahrscheinlich keine Ahnung. --Ralf Roleček 20:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Da bin ich 100%ig bei dir, Smial. Das Problem sind für mich nicht die 4MP, vermutlich hätte ich sogar selbst dafür gestimmt. Das Problem sind zum einen der kurze Zeitraum in dem eine solche Änderung durchgepeitscht wurde und über die Osterferien quasi kaum jemandem die Chance auch nur auf Diskussion ließ und zum anderen das gesamte restliche Abstimmungsverhalten, wie du schon sagst. --Indeedous (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jetzt macht mal QI nicht so schlecht. Es hat mir in der Vergangenheit geholfen und hilft mir auch heute einen gewissen Qualitätsstandard zu erreichen und zu halten. Die Kritik hilft mir oft weiter und wenn es mir nur hilft einen halbwegs objektiven Blick auf die eigenen Fotos zu bewahren. Wenn doch eines abgelehnt wird, bei dem ich die Einwände nicht verstehe, versuche ich, inzwischen, mit Lässigkeit darüber hinwegzugehen ;-). --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

QIC ist von der ursprünglichen Konzeption her ja auch nicht schlecht, sonst hätte ich mich damals von MBDortmund nicht überzeugen lassen, hier mitzutun. Mich ärgert nur, daß hier in kontraproduktiver Weise an einer Schraube gedreht wurde, wo gar kein wirklicher Bedarf war - und wir nun statt einer niedrigen, aber harten Grenze ein etwas höheres Wischiwaschi-Limit haben. Die tatsächlichen, im Laufe der Jahre angestauten Probleme hingegen werden nicht angegangen und führen zu immer mehr Konflikten, Diskussionen, CRs und flüchtenden Regulars. -- Smial (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, maybe my key question in English: Why do these changes have to be done in just 4 days during the easter holidays so that many people can't even participate? Although I don't like these strict policies about voting periods in (de.)wikipedia, maybe that's the reason why they are useful. --Indeedous (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Many people Indeedous? The 94% of the people which uses the QI voted, and then 4 days are few? More than 50% are in favor of 4 Mp, honestly I don't know what you could ask (though easter was April 5, at least in Italy, France, Spain etc.),Greetengs --LivioAndronico talk 07:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

According to your contribution logbook, you had time to work for Commons on April 11. So, I guess, that you are not speaking for yourself but for other users. Which users? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm strongly with Indeedous. A major change like this one has to be based on a much larger concensus achieved throughout a much longer period. No matter what the present outcome seems to be, reaching a decision and implementing it on the guidelines in four days looks like a coup d'etat to me. It wouldn't surprise me if some users refused to acknowlege such decision. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's our basic problem of understanding. These 94% may be the old men's club who believes that they ARE the QI and which promote each others photographs as QI. But you completely ignored these thousends of normal QI-participants who are also affected by those changes. It would have been fair if a banner noticed them "Hey, we are planning to change the rules and you are invited to participate. Voting period ends in 3 weeks". And if most of them uses QI once a month, we have to wait for a month before we come to a decision because THEY are QI. The german community and some other central european countrys had easter holidays (it's the week before and after easter, depends on the state) and you didn't only ignore them, you also ignored the portals and other groups inside wikipedia. There must have been some wildlife photographer here, but you didn't even consider that aviation photographers and maybe sports photographers or whoever might have problems with the 4-MP-rule. That's why I can't agree with these changes. --Indeedous (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Who attends more community spoke (I honestly I've never seen you) attended that many Germans and everyway in Italy they say: one swallow does not make a spring! Where are all these thousands of users? It would be useful to see them, but in QI who usually worthy of help I have seen . However one thing is a picture quality (which must have certain characteristics) is another upload photos. I do not put all my photos on QI or FP only those who believe they have the features. Thank you.--LivioAndronico talk 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this comment, but I'll have to agree with Indeedous. I don't have a problem with the 4Mpix rule as such, but I do have a major problem with the process used to determine it. You can't just overthrow a long-standing rule like this through 4 days of back-room voting during the holidays – as far as I can see, there wasn't even an announcement on the main Village Pump. I strongly suggest to roll back all the changes related to this vote and start a new one promoted through the appropriate channels. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that will come to nowhere,after that already there have been extensive discussions of various users active in QI, any further discussion is useless. On this subject has already been discussed and debated with the proper authorities, the rest is just talk,I finish here for this topic, thanks --LivioAndronico talk 08:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@El Grafo: - why would there be an announcement at COM:VP? This is about QIC, so those who contribute should be the ones to decide. I agree that a longer time period would have been good, but if most of the QI regulars have commented, and the vote is pretty clear, I don't see a big problem with implementing it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

El Grafo, according to your contribution logbook, you had time to work for Commons on April 12. Don't tell us, you had no chance to vote --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mattbuck and Cccefalon: I had just returned from my vacation and didn't notice there was a vote until it was too late as QI is not one of my top priorities. But this is not about me: Since QI is supposed to be a way to help people find good images for their articles, users who don't actively contribute here but use the QI badge as a guide should have the chance to participate in a process like this. Unless QI has turned into nothing more than a place for complementary backslapping, they are the ones who should decide stuff like this. Who knows, maybe the majority of them would prefer a much higher threshold? --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. …" ;-) -- Smial (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything - hence also to the amount of megapixels - is 42 --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

At least nobody hung a Beware of the Leopard sign on the door ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Info -- Let's put it this way then: I have reverted the changes to the guidelines because I don't acknowlege the decision. Please think again before putting it back: we should all strive for the same goals and no one wants to start an edit war. For those less experience in these things, major changes such as this one are usually discussed throughout a month, or more. Afterwars, a second discussion is held, usually a shorter one, to decide how to reflect the concensus on the guidelines. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You complained a "coup d'état" so you should stick to your own policy. I reverted it. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

My proposal: Start a voting, if we should roll back. Time for voting should be one month. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And one thing more: It is you, who is starting to be very undemocratic. You were involved in the voting on April 11. At that time, you had no problem with casting your vote. Now, as the outcome of the voting is not upon your taste, you start a war against the vote under the pretence of democracy. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please calm down. Usual voting periods in wikimedia projects are much longer. I often wait some days for a reply on my arguments, this was not possible here, as the "result" was implemented so quickly. As can be seen in the current discussion, there is obvisiously still need for discussion. -- Smial (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but there is still no need to roll back. Discuss here and if a majority thinks it should be rolled back, then do it. But until then, everybody can see how the threshold works. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Please discuss and do not engage in edit warring. Pleclown (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (To be clear: I don't care about the limit, but I agree that the decision was a little bit rushed)

@Pleclown: Then to be perfectly coherent with what you say, please put back the page as it was before the change. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alvesgaspar: meta:The Wrong Version Pleclown (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pleclown: But that is exactly what I have done, to draw your attention to the fact that this is the wrong version! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

As indicated previously, the objective of this so-called voting was obviously only the enforcement of a particular interest, and power, it was not really about image quality. Discussions about minimum image size have arosen in the past for several times, allways without a decision and without consensus. The way how this voting was closed may be not a "coup d'état", but leaves a very bad taste. An initial evaluation of the results were given after only 24 hours, possibly influencing later votes. Final result was published and voting was closed after only three days. That's absolutely unusual in wikimedia project diskussions and this is not really democracy. -- Smial (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You also casted your vote and didn't mentioned about the voting period. Indeed, it leaves a bad taste, that you are opposing now.

My previous proposal is serious and I repeat it here: Start a new vote, if the 4 MPx rule shall be rolled back to 2 MPX. Propose a voting period of 4 weeks and restrict the voting to people, which had been with QIC at least since March 1st, 2015. In the meanwhile, we all can observe, how we fare with a threshold of 4 MPix. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

At the time I casted my vote, there was no voting period, there wasn't even a "voting" section, which I myself introduced later. Don't turn facts upside down! -- Smial (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• What is being contested is the legitimacy of the decision process, not the results of the poll (as of 14 April). That is why I don't consider the above proposal serious. I can perfectly live with a 4Mp limit but am strongly against the present disrespect for the concensus-reaching culture of Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Voting" on Wikimedia projects is forbidden if it is not used to determine consensus. As soon as consensus is determined, there is no reason for the vote. Voting is just a means to an end. I almost missed the vote due to inactivity, but even if I had missed it, the result would still be overwhelmingly clear. A few more votes would make people feel better but not change the outcome. This topic has been discussed extensively for months now. Everyone has had plenty of chances to weigh in. It's not an issue of sneaking in a controversial change, a power grab, or any other conspiracy. I've read this thread and I see very few users merely discussing that did not also vote. We don't need a longer period to bring in users who don't participate in QIC to stuff the ballot. That is certainly disrespectful of building consensus. -- Ram-Man 13:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• The change should not have been made on Commons:Image guidelines. I see its been correctly applied to Commons:Quality images candidates. -- Ram-Man 13:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable is the short voting period. Such decisions require more time. Even users who are not constantly online must have the chance to express themselves. 1 Mounth voting period is minimum! Please revert and repeat! --Milseburg (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear: I don't care about the limit, but I agree that the decision was a little bit rushed. I fully agree. Although I have voted, I think it is not usual in Wikimedia projects to close a poll without any indication of a "deadline". I did not notice this when I voted, I think the proceeding is a bit violent, and the procedure not conform to our usual way to do. And again, I don't care with the final result. Users old and new, need more respect. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • At the time of the vote, the outcome seemed pretty obvious to me, although I could not quite understand the urgency in closing the discussion so fast, I do not think it was done in bad faith in any way. However, since so many users have chimed in afterwards and expressed very clearly that they believe the closure was premature and that not enough discussion had taken place, I really believe we should open this process again. If not, these people will just feel alienated; I think you know the pshychology in this from yourself; if your are being told what to do you feel much less ownership, than if you feel you have had a chance to voice your opinion. If we stubbornly insist not to re-open the discussion we will have abrasion for months from the users who feel they were not heard. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I see no real harm in that, other than wasting time. But I don't buy that voices were excluded. This vote may have been rushed, but not the discussion which has been ongoing for months. -- Ram-Man 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, voices were excluded in two ways: first, the annoucement was made through a short list of pings only (which, for example did not include my name); and second, by the rush in presenting the results, closing the discussion, drwing the conclusions and implementing the decision. This left behind all those who were too busy in real life to fully participate (that was my case also). It is not by chance that important decisions in Commons are made after a long period of discussion. I fully agree with Slaunger that this incident may cause, if not dealt with carefully, difficult to repair damage among the editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I too was excluded. A few nominators participated in a very short discussion on file size and decided to implement a decision that was undemocratic and irresponsible. It is completely inappropriate for macro photography. --Charles (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

For me it does not change anything, so I do not think anything will change the outcome. You can also start a vote of one month or three years.--LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• As for some of my collegues I think :

1/ 4mpx is too much for macro and exceptions should be made and proposed in the vote for the macro photography.

2/ a much longer period of vote (at least one month)

3/ a much longer ping list

I think we should vote again. -- Christian Ferrer 05:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In my understanding macro photography is not, that you use the normal lenses and just cut a small portion of the image. Usually, you work either with a mikroscope lense or a reverse ring and the object will almost occupy the full sensor format. Even the single parts of the snail shell images of Llez are huge. For living animals we already have the wilflife exemption. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I use a high quality Canon 100mm L-series macro lens. If I photograph a live insect in a forest, hand held, I cannot always approach too close as (a) the DOF will be too shallow, (b) the camera will block out the light, (c) the insect will run/fly/wriggle away. Therefore for many macro images of small subjects cropping will be necessary. The alternative, with a 4MP cut off, is to submit an image with lots of unnecessary background, which does not improve the image's encyclopaedic worth. --Charles (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That case is perfectly covered by the wildlife exemption imo. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily: this applies to any macro shot. See Depth of Field vs. Resolution. In general, the majority of high DoF macro shots are resolution limited to the 4MP to 8MP range due to diffraction. If you allow for cropping of macro, then the you are looking at 2MP to 6MP for the reasonable range. The wildlife exception does not cover the complete set of scenarios. -- Ram-Man 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment We are all waiting for the change made to the QIC page to be reverted, so we can engage in a new discussion. Maybe an admin could do it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done please don't revert again until a consensus were reached Ezarateesteban 02:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I doubt whether this proposal is well prepared. I see an exception for wildlife. Some people argued that it should be applicable for sports, night portraits, etc. too. I think that argument is reasonable. So what about splitting photographs into different groups. 1. Wildlife (macro and tele), sports, night portraits, etc. or possible all tele photographs. 2. landscape, architecture, etc. or possibly all photographs below 100mm in 35mm eqv. 3. Stitched panoramas. I think a 3MP is enough for group 1, 6MP for group 2, and 12MP for group 3. Jee 03:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I'm having second thoughts for my earlier support for 4/5 MP (with allowance) at QI. I think we're looking down the wrong end of the telescope -- starting with camera sensor resolution and trying to interpret what is then acceptable QI. Instead, we should look at the variety of end-use and view what is the minimum quality for a good number of uses. The Commons search / category pages are awful and at least with QI/FP we have a chance to filter them now to select good photos. But there's no reason why Commons couldn't also filter by size (pixels, bytes or both) to meet a re-user's needs. I'd love if we could ask WMF to improve the software for this. So I wonder whether we should forget increasing MP at QI and concentrate instead on being better at reviewing images. For a start, stop this stupid pixel-peeping nonsense where a 24/36MP image gets rejected for a bit of noise or CA. Start reviewing at 4/5MP rather than full-size. Start approving high quality images and rejecting rubbish photographs even if they are well-exposed, focused, sharp and noise-free. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment just an observation as the founder of QI, I see nothing wrong with increasing technical standards to reflect the ability of available equipment even most phones(ignoring image qaulity) can take better than 2MP images now. Any changes should be reached in a fair manner ensuring that a true consensus can be accepted by all even those that disagree with the change. Following the decision implementation of new rules should be at some point in the future(1st of the next month) which can then be advertised giving people time to adjust rather than immediately after a discussion is closed leaving people disillusioned about the change. Gnangarra 10:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• About the process: What the heck is going on here? There is a vote about a significant change in QI requirements and it is lasting only for 4 days? Over Easter Holidays? You can't be serious! Which mentally sane person would expect a real discussion and consensus to be found in Wikimedia within this timeframe? This smells very foul. A little bit like the independence vote of the Crimean -> make sure that the potential opposition can't vote before you start it...
• About the subject: And what should be the reason for this? Just because the camera can do more pixels nowadays? Great, so we justice technical equipment instead of quality. Honestly: 2MP is good enough even for an A4 print seen from a normal viewing distance - so this will meet the basic purpose of the resolution requirement as well.
• About the end: Unlike many here I don't see Wikimedia as a cheap foto cache and was always trying to provide high quality images for this project. The QI marker was in some way a confirmation to see if I achieved this goal while even the declining comments could give some suggestions. So as I'm now obviously not able to provide high quality pictures anymore by default (I'm not willing and in most cases technically not able to provide this resolution), I will not provide any images at all. So Good Bye and thanks for the fish... --LC-de (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolution in QI 2nd approach

Let's face it: The hard 2-MPix-limit has worked well for several years. On the other hand digital photography techniques have evolved and some contributors demand higher resolution. This must be taken serious. We have also seen many arguments that make it difficult to set 4 MPix (ore more) as a hard limit. This also must be taken serious. A long list of exceptions would make a fixed limit with more than 2 Mpix difficult to handle. This would also lead to disputes in the future, whether a particular photo subject is to be recognized as an exception or not. I'm a fan of as simple rules as possible. How about a simplification instead of a pile of exception rules? My idea is: Don't use Mpixels, use the length of the short side of the image. If we set this e.g. to 1600 px, we would get a slight enhancement for square crops to about 2.5 MPix, typical 2:3 DSLR shots would need 3.8 MPix, and a stitched 4:1 pano must have at least 10 Mpix. This would have three advantages: a) Crops or necessary downscaling for technical reasons are still possible, and we have a moderate enhancement for standard shots. b) No need for mathematics, it can be seen directly on the description page whether an image has sufficiant resolution or not. c) We have still an undisputable hard limit. -- Smial (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think I could support this proposal in a real vote --LC-de (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.