Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Notice of QIC-related AN/U discussion.

Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#El_Golli_Mohamed - relating to revenge voting. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Review needed

Dear @Medium69: , @Pokéfan95: ,@XRay: @Hubertl: and @Cccefalon: , many photos need Review,why is not reviewed ? --Touzrimounir (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you review some of them? --Magnus (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Touzrimounir, we all are not employees of WikiMedia but are volounteering in our spare time. I am a chemical engineer with a tight work shedule and I am contributing every day 3 or more additional hours for WikiCommons. When doing review or even which image I am reviewing is alone my cup of tea. Thanks for understanding. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Medium69: I am not a photographer I can't judged, photos of other photographers, @Cccefalon: Yes I know, I hope I can help, but as I said I can't judged, photos of other photographers--Touzrimounir (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Touzrimounir: The judgment must be impartial and is completely voluntary. For my part, I criticize multiple images per day among those that must be evaluated. It regularly happens that certain images be removed without being evaluated. In this case, they may be proposed again as a candidate.

Je vois que tu est francophone. La traduction venant de Google, voici la VF :

Le jugement doit être impartial et est entièrement volontaire. Pour ma part, je critique plusieurs images par jour entre ceux qui doivent être évalués. Il arrive régulièrement que certaines images soient supprimées sans être évaluée. Dans ce cas, ils peuvent être proposées à nouveau comme candidat. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

On-Line Jigsaw Puzzles!

Found another creative use of my works. Credit is linked to Commons:Quality images. Not bad. :) Jee 12:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Bravo! I tried and took too long... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• You can click "Change Cut" and try "6 or 12 piece" first. More pieces is difficult. :) Jee 14:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have the beginner's version with 4 large pieces? ;) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Alvesgaspar, It was not designed by me. I just found them accidentally! Jee 15:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please join us!

@Aeou: , @Agnes Monkelbaan: , @Ahonc: , @Ajepbah: , @Alkab: , @Alvesgaspar: , @Amine BAHDOD: , @Anahit Hovhannisyan05: , @Anass ERRIHANI: , @Anderson sady: , @Andreine: , @Arabesk~commonswiki: , @ArildV: , @Armenak Margarian: , @Arnomane: , @Atamari: , @B137: , @Bacimov Nefzi: , @Basotxerri: , @Benmahjoub mohamed: , @Berthold Werner: , @Bijay chaurasia: , @Boulati maya: , @C messier: , @Carschten: , @Cayambe: , @Cccefalon: , @Charlesjsharp: , @Chettouh Nabil: , @Christian Ferrer: , @Christof46: , @Clément Bardot: , @Code: , @Colin: , @Daniel Case: , @Denis Barthel: , @Der Wolf im Wald: , @DerFussi: , @Dirtsc: , @Dllu: , @Dmitry Ivanov: , @El Golli Mohamed: , @Elrond: , @Ercé: , @Ermell: , @Ezarate: , @Famberhorst: , @Florstein: , @Freddy2001: , @Gastonitos: , @Geiserich77: , @George Chernilevsky: , @Halavar: , @Harke: , @Holleday: , @Hubertl: , @Hydro: , @Iifar: , @IssamBarhoumi: , @Jacek Halicki: , @Jacek79: , @Johann Jaritz: , @Kadellar: , @Kamila ould larbi: , @Khalid Souqbi: , @Livioandronico2013: , @Llez: , @Llez: , @Mahieddine23: , @Medium69: , @Michael Barera: , @Milseburg: , @Mimicki: , @Moahim: , @Moroder: , @Mus52: , @Noor dar: , @Paris 16: , @Poco a poco: , @Pudelek: , @R.asma: , @Ralf Roletschek: , @Rbrechko: , @Reda benkhadra: , @Rhododendrites: , @Rijinatwiki: , @Rolf H.: , @Safae89: , @Sahli Najla: , @Scotch Mist: , @Sejir: , @SKas: , @Smial: , @Summerdrought: , @SvartKat: , @Touzrimounir: , @Trace: , @Tsungam: , @Uajith: , @Uoaei1: , @Valen1988: , @Vikoula5: , @ViseMoD: , @Vivaystn: , @Yelkrokoyade: , @Óðinn: , @Роман Дергунов: , @لا روسا: You are nominators of the last weeks or your image has been promoted. QIC is a nice project and we are working for this. But the nomination is not the last step. It would be very kind of you participating the last steps, the categorization. There is a list of recently promoted images waiting for categorization. It is a lot of work to do. And it would be much easier if everybody helps to do this work. So please join us. Additionaly you should categorize your own promoted images in suitable QI categories (for example location and subject) too. Thank you very much. (BTW: At the moment there is a lot of data. If you have trouble with your browser try Google Chrome. For my browser it is still too much data, so I was looking for a working browser. Google Chrome was the first working browser I’ve found.) --XRay ^talk 16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the list contains the few people already categorizing the images too. --XRay ^talk 16:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that and thank you XRay I've been categorizing in the last weeks and with Smials sorting and coordination I have to say that it is nicer than in the past, as each one can work a bunch in an own page at the pace they wanT, and therefore edit conflicts are not possible. Poco² 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Point taken.

Should I use Subject/Architecture/Interior or Subject/Architecture/Religious/Churches for a church interior?--ArildV (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO: Yes. Sometimes more than one gallery is useful. --XRay ^talk 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

These QI galleries are waste of time, sorry. They are overload (causing just browser problems), the pictures are in meaningless order, with no caption etc., no one ever browses thru them. Much more important are QI categories (like Quality images of Nymphaea or Quality images of Tyrol), but many nominators don't give a damn, which is a real problem. --A.Savin 11:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You may right. IMO the categories are better. But IMO first we solve the problem with the galleries, then the categories. The first step may be to change QICBot and add a note for the discussion page and inform the user that she/he should categorize the promoted images. --XRay ^talk 17:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ehm, sorry .. I'd love to help, but I don't have the slightest idea what you want me to do ... ? Denis Barthel (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with A. Savin that any work invested on the galleries is futile. --Magnus (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

They may have been useful in the past, but now that we have the "good images" tool: Is there really any good reason to spend time working on them? --El Grafo (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the "good images" tool will only work fine when all (or most) QI's properly categorized by country, by subject. We should delete those useless galleries, and colleagues who previously spent their time on sorting recently promoted QI's to galleries better may want to look at recent QICbot edits and add QI categories to promoted pictures, unless it's already done. --A.Savin 15:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

A.Savin, as far as I know the FastCCI tool by Dschwen only requires generic "by country" and "by subject" categories. It doesn't depend on any "Quality images of ..." cats or galleries. But unfortunately many participants refused to add cats like "Insects of <place>" cats even after my repeated requests. They add geotags; but it will not be much helpful in FastCCI. Jee 06:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant is that the tool often provides unaccurate search results when using only Category:Quality images together with a generic country category. But when we consequently categorize QI by country, the tool will also use these categories, so that we get more precise results. --A.Savin 12:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I don't know what algorithm/logic Dschwen is using (although his code is publicly available). Let us see what he says. Jee 13:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

In an ideal world the Quality Images of.. categories should be completely unnecessary. I think they already are, but I'm open to be convinced otherwise. FastCCI does have a strength of match slider to tighten a match. Essentially what that slider does is filtering by length of the category trails. For each picture that shows up in the results this category trail is shown when clicking on the thumbnail. The Quality Images of.. categories add no additional information. Everything needed is already encoded in the other categories plus the Quality Images category. The question is just how to best present this relation. So in summary I agree that the time of the QI gallery pages has passed. I would suggest to spend the time used on that secondary categorization scheme somewhere else. I would also suggest not to spend time on creating parallel trees in the categorization system that mostly represent simple unions of existing categories (like the Quality Images of.. categories). Ultimately both systems are introducing redundancies in our data set and those bind resources and increase the future maintenance burden. --Dschwen (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've categorized some dozens of QI a few days ago, but indeed, I'm not sure it is really useful...--Jebulon (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Where are all the easy to use and understandable tools, where are the tutorials, how-to's etc.? Where are the dozen and hundreds of contributions and where is the practical help by those, who now know everything better? I've asked for solutions at least since September. The few discussions all ended up with something like "/recently promoted is shit, there will be better tools in the future". For the moment /recently promoted is the only tool where everyone without deep knowledge of data bases or categories can help to get some kind of structure. If this is obsolte, why is dschwens bot still filling the page? It should be shut down and the problem is gone. -- Smial (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The bot could instead move the images to a category (for example Category:Recently promoted Quality Images). We can replace all the galleries with corresponding categories and use simple but very effective tools like Cat-a-lot to move images to from Category:Recently promoted Quality Images to the right category. A single user can categorize thousands of images in less than an hour. If we want to keep the galleries, we can ask a bot to fill them with all the images in a category.--ArildV (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Category sorted by promotion date. But the gallery should be filled with up to 200 (for example) images from the category selected by random every day. --XRay ^talk 11:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I will make the appropriate changes to the bot if a consensus is established here. I'm not a fan of adding Category:Recently promoted Quality Images. What does Recently mean? Who will remove this category? This just creates work. I Could have the bot limit the number of images to a set number on the Recently promoted page and we then use it strictly as a showcase page without any further categorization. --Dschwen (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Dschwen for the comments. So I think it is the time to stop populating "Quality image" categories and galleries. They both are not only redundant; but add huge to workload to our volunteers. Unlike FP, we've a lot of QI promotions everyday. So even if we continue these practices for the time being, it will end up out of control soon. So I support to stop queuing new promotions to recently promoted images by the bot. Jee 02:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The last days I spend some time on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted and I also think it's no longer useful. What is the sense of galleries like for example Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Places/Mixed? No one will use them to find an image. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• the galleries are changed to frequently now to make them useful as anything more than a sample of the QI images being promoted, what would be nice is finding somewhere more prominent for them to be displayed, maybe a gallery that rotates through the recently promotes images on the main page would be a nice addition. On the QI page the galleries still serve a purpose of being a visual guide to people as to what is contained within each area which importantly transcends language issues. Categorising like images together is still useful even if they are getting a bit heavy to navigate. Before discarding either based on the work load I think it could better to consider alternative or additional uses for ways in which they could be developed beyond just the current collection. Just to throw it out there maybe categories could be sorted by image quality rather than the current default of files name, honestly how many categories do you see where most of the first page of images arent even of a useful size Gnangarra 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for recently promoted images

In a few words a proposal for the recently promoted images:

1. Stop filling the galleries with recently promoted QI images
2. Build a gallery structure like the QI categories
3. Fill the new galleries with up to 200 (for example) images by random every day
4. Add the images of the galleries to the corresponding categories
5. Add a note to the user discussion pages if the are informed about promoted images to put their own images to the QI categories ("by country", "by city", "by subject", ...)
6. And in addition: Remove the category Unassessed QI candidates

It's a proposal for discussion, not for voting. --XRay ^talk 11:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd oppose removing Category:Unassessed QI candidates, as when I was a QIer it was useful to look at my watchlist and see if anything had been added to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ich kategorisiere nur, wenn ich auch Kategorien finde. Und da die alle auf englisch sind, suche ich mir irgendeine Kat. die halbwegs paßt. Den Rest macht dann irgendwann irgendwer. Das wurde mir übrigens hier mehrmals genau so empfohlen. --Ralf Roleček 15:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with XRay's proposals, including the removal of the category of unassessed QI candidates. I understand very well Ralf's concern: we need a real internationalization of names of categories. How to do ? Wir brauchen eine Internazionalisierung für Kategorien. Aber wann, und wie ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I support #1 as a priority. We can discuss and came into an agreement for the other points in later. No need to populate that gallery which eats our volunteer's time. Jee 02:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

QI categorization tool - A new approach

Personalized tool for QI godfathers

Yesterday, Smial and me started a new approach to resolve the problem with the pending sorting of the recently promoted QI images. The idea is, to find godfathers among the reviewers, which are willing to adopt the responsibility over a small amount of images to be categorized.

Let me show you how it works:

• Smial prepared a sub page of the "Recently promoted QI images", which is branded with my user name: Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted/Cccfalon
• I asked him to move 500 of the pending 8000 images to my new categorization page
• When clicking on the link in the line "Please categorize using the QI categorization tool", I get a thumbnail view of all images with a drop-down menu under every image
• The drop down menu contains all available categories and as easy as a cake I can assign a suitable category with the image
• For saving my work, I press the SAVE button at the end of the page
• A "HIDE PROCESSED IMAGES" button at the top of the page helps me to keep the side clear

Smial accepted to act as a manager for the subpages. After one week, he will empty the categorized as well as the so far uncategorized images from the subpage and substitute them with a fresh set. It will ensure, that images whereas I feel unsafe to categorize (e.g. insects) will be handed over to another godfather.

There is no pressure in completing the categorization in a certain time.

I knowe, there are colleagues with some good experience with categories among us. PLEASE JOIN US - It would be great to find some fellow photographers, which are willing to contribute. Just say "YES" and tell us, if you want to adopt a small (50 - 150) or big amount (200 - 500) of images. Smial will then create a subpage with your username and fill it with the requested amount of images. He also will take care of emptying and refilling the page approximatly one time per week.

And if someone just wants to try out the tool, you can try it on my subpage. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Cccefalon: @Smial: Ok, I'll join you. Please create me a subpage with 200 pictures. --Code (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/code ;-) -- Smial (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will take care of 500 images, Smial Poco² 10:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Poco - sorry, 615 images, properly count does not seem to be my strong point ;-) But these sub pages are not private property, everyone who has problems with the too big main page can work on them cross country ;-) -- Smial (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If you feel uncomfortable with too much images, you can of course copy back some photos to the original page, Diego. Anyway, thanks for participating! Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

After every work on the main page I need to restart my firefox because it consumes too much memory and nearly freezes. So I try to avoid tooooooo many changes at a time. Will be better tomorrow, at work I have a somewhat more powerful computer and faster internet connection. --Smial (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, 200 for me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Berthold Werner Have fun ;-) -- Smial (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Finished mine, ready for the next 500 ;-) --Code (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• If there is no time pressure, I will join. First a package of 500 please. --XRay ^talk 12:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/XRay Nimm dir soviel Zeit, wie du dazu Lust hast. Wenn sich ein, zwei Tage nichts mehr tut auf deiner Unterseite, tausche ich den Satz aus. Oder du fragst auf meiner Benutzerdiskussion oder hier auf der Disk nach Nachschub. -- Smial (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nimm lieber 5 bis 7 Tage. Ich habe nicht jeden Tag Gelegenheit weiterzumachen. --XRay ^talk 13:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I try first 200. --Jean11 (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ok, Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Jean11, s.v.p. -- Smial (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

First 200 done (as far as my knowledge of insects works), next 200 please --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have saved, but no processing has taken place, what can I do?

• Is there a list of the areas? Or can someone send me the list per email?
• I wonder what is the range for cats?
• Include museums in Subject/Architecture/Public Buildings?
• What about paintings? Subject/Works of arts? Paintings of people in Subject/People?

Thanks. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries: Smial will copy your work back to the original place and the QICbot will process all image categories among his daily duties. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there no other solution? --Jean11 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The software of the bot was configured in a way, that it is only looking into the top directory of the Recently Promoted Images. Of course - if you know, what you are doing - you can move back yourself. It is not a miracle. We just wanted to keep it simple for the contributors and Smial accepted to administrate the file distribution. (Wenn es Dich gelüsted, heute abend noch mehr zu kategorisieren, kannst Du jederzeit in den Verzeichnissen der anderen Paten arbeiten; das sind keine Erbhöfe.) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tanks. Yesterday I had tried it at your side. No save possible, I thought it´s works perhaps only with the „own“ page. I do it at my side by hand. Is working. --Jean11 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cats = Mammals, domesticated --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Clear, I didnt saw it. Thank you. --Jean11 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• All done. Next please not more than 200, please. --XRay ^talk 19:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  I take 500 more Poco² 00:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• You all are really amazing, more than 2.000 images done in less than one week! -- Smial (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think, my set also can be renewed. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Smial (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've created one more page, where I collected images which were promoted a long time ago and not been worked on for which reason ever. Maybe not easy to categorize. Please have a look at Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/very old promotions. -- Smial (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted/Berthold Werner  Done as far as possible. I can take new ones. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please a new set of 200 --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• done. -- Smial (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ready. Next please, up to 200 images. And: Thank you, Smial. --XRay ^talk 19:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am still working on my list of images, but nobody works on the new images. My English isn't the best but should we give a note to all nominators on their discussion page to help to categorize the recently promoted images? --XRay ^talk 13:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My hope is, some more of the photographers with really heavy count of contributions would join us. On the other hand: Those of us who participated in the past weeks did a great work! -- Smial (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Ready. Please once again up to 200 images. --XRay ^talk 18:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

All pages refreshed ;-) -- Smial (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will be happy for 500 to start with.--ArildV (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ready. Please no new images. I'll continue with the very old promotions. --XRay ^talk 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Already transfered. --XRay ^talk 16:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have a fast, reliable internet connection at the moment. -- Smial (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. We should find an approach for the categories instead of the galleries to. I categorize my QI images with at least two categories every time and IMO everybody should do this. --XRay ^talk 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to all who helped to categorize this huge amount of images, and still working on the now handy page of recently promoted QI. I'm waiting now hopefully for the great tools that will replace the old process and the corresponding, easily understandable instructions for them. -- Smial (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Foul play of User:Geugeor

Just for information and please have a look at User:Geugeor: Inserted additional nominations in previous day list to raise his number of nominatios: see here. This was not accidently, as nominated one step later, five photos for the next day. User:Geugeor, be warned and stop disruptive work in QIC. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith please. Georges is new at that. He is one of the local organizers of commons:Wiki Loves Africa. I suggested him to propose some images from Cameroon to QI as the other organisers do as well. But it is his first time and in spite of me explaining to him, he seems to have missed some of the rules, such as the 5 images max. Understand that people can make mistakes when they FIRST do something and explaining them nicely can do better than immediately putting them on a pilori. Just drop him a word and remove the extra and that is it. Dont you think ? Anthere (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

+1. Looks to me like misunderstanding rules, not like foul play. -- Smial (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it happens that someone is adding more than 5 images and we delete or oppose it. But when someone is inserting additional images retroactively to an already close nomination day, it does not look like good faith, I am sorry. You are welcome to encourage photographers to join QIC but please encourage them also, to read the Image Guidelines before nominating their photos. This would prevent much grief and quarrels. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I *did* encourage him to do so... To me, inserting images to an already closed nomination day rather look like a confused person more than foul play since the day is precisely... already closed. Whatever... Anthere (talk)

I recently also sorted an image in the wrong day. That's no reason to get upset. --Ralf Roleček 12:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

After your already nominated 5 for the actual day some minutes ago? Hello? We are not talking of one wrongly inserted image but o two sets of five images inserted in two actions with a time gap of some minutes to two differnent days. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So what? The rule with 5 pictures is anyway nonsense. We have other problems her, more importants. --Ralf Roleček 12:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

True, for example correct and sufficient categorization. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorys are completely unnecessary. This is only a hobby for bored users. --Ralf Roleček 13:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Everyone here knows, that you deny most of the QIC rules. So far, I do not consider your contributions to this discussion as serious or even helpful. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Fix of an error

User:Jacek Halicki and others, fyi: I did some undos to fix a recent error. After this error only one change was done, which I restored by this change. --Hasenläufer (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Image guidelines - Downsampling

"Images should not be downsampled". I'm actually still liberal on this issue. But I would like to know, whether this rule applies here. It seems to me, that it´s a matter of luck whether a nomination is tripped up by this rule or not. --Milseburg (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Downsampling is in some cases absolutely necessary to get a satisfactory result. So this rule is not a "must". -- Smial (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with words here. What is the difference between "should", and "must"? Almost all the rules use the word "should", and for a French like me, it is not very clear, very "cartesian"...a rule with "should" is maybe polite, but not really a rule...--Jebulon (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "must" does not allow exceptions. -- 87.123.173.39 00:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

When it is obvious for me, that someone intentionally reduced the size considerably to hide flaws or to give away only a breadcrumb of his work to Commons, I wont award this with a QIC support. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, this argumentation is b.... not very sensible. If an image has minor glitches only visible in full res, why the heck should it be forbidden to hide those flaws and improve the quality by simply downsampling the image? Second, even if you know, that the equipment can do more you wouldn't be able to separate such an image from a cropped one. And last: 2MP resolution is a quite reasonable requirement. It is roughly full HD resolution and can even be printed to 13x18cm in acceptable quality. Could be more, if someone wants to print it on A4. Larger formats will decrease the dpi requirements, because those big images are viewed from a greater distance. There is an resolution of 6 to 8 MP with which you can do virtually everything in print and media. Limiting factor is the aligning power of the human eye and this will not increase with technical advancements. So even the reason given in the image guidelines "We can't predict what devices may be used in the future" is ... disputable. --LC-de (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

+1. Further: You will not find any zoom lens on the market, which would really be able to use the full resolution of e.g. a Nikon D800 or a Canon 5DS R. Only some very expensive primes reach such high resolution. The problem is still growing with cameras with smaller sensors and high resolution. Next: Noise and necessary noise reduction lowers resolution. If such images (sports, concerts etc.) are not scaled down in a reasonable manner, none of them could ever be QI either because of unsharpness or because of high noise level. Third: every perspective correction by software works by pixel interpolation and uses sharpening methods. The stronger the amount of correction the more you need to scale down the result, or you will get really funny artifacts. -- Smial (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Btw: Most of my uploads are scaled to 3000px at the longer edge which means they have more or less 6 MPix depending on aspect ratio. This is good enough for 99% of all usage.

Changed your position?

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) (Commons:Quality images candidates/Proposal to change the guidelines)

regards, _→AzaToth 08:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You made my day, AzaToth! --A.Savin 09:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

*Sigh.* If you have to explain satire or jokes, the joke is no longer there. Hint: read and understand the context where I wrote this 8-MPix-statement. -- Smial (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Ps: Today I would recommend at least 14 MPixels, so crappy cameras like the Sony Alpha 7S can be excluded.

Wow. I'm lucky. I've got only a Sony Alpha 7 (simple) as Xmas gift. Pffffiou, one "R" more, and I have had a crappy camera...--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

+1 to Smial, in some cases the downsampling is the better way to QI Images. --Ralf Roleček 20:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Useless discussion IMO: how to know that a picture has been downsampled.--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I take a picture with Nikon D300s and the EXIF from D50 and all ist good? We have here the Quality Images, no the Quality Cameras.--Ralf Roleček 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think, everyone who is observing my review comments knows, that I do not only count the total of pixels but give a sincere reason for a size related decline (most time however, I give people the chance to provide a higher resolution). If someone offers me a landscape, shot with a 18 MPix camera and scales it down to 2.010 pixels, then it is not acceptable for me to promote it as QI. Also, you can easily see, when a 4 Mpix photo from a camera with higher resolution capabilities still has fine magenta or cyan lines - it shows me that the photographer just has not done his homework and tries to put me down the garden path.

I agree, that sometimes a slight downsampling is ok to make an image more crisp. But we talk then of a ± 10% downsample.

I think, that QIC should help people to enhance their skills and on the other hand QIC should always request that people dedicate the best possible result of their work. If people only want to share breadcrumbs, they can go to flickr or upload it to Commons without a claim to get the QI seal. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the "Image guidelines" should be discarded or at least rewritten to be very short. Currently it is like a beginners guide to photo technique/mistakes and there are plenty books and other internet sites for that. Much of the advice is flawed, such as contradictory guidelines on the one hand wanting pixel-perfect 100% noise/CA and on the other hand forbidding downsizing. There are just so many places were a degree of substantial downsizing is required and absolutely fine yet there are also cases where people are downsizing simply to avoid pixel-peeping reviews or because they only want to donate small images. I suggest for the former that you challenge the culture of pixel peeping that occurs here. For the latter, I'm not sure one can legislate -- better to just leave a comment or ask the person to upload a larger image. Partly it comes down to what you are trying to achieve with this forum? Is it to tag images that are useful for a wide purpose and at good quality. Then who cares who created it and what degree of downsizing has occurred -- is the end result detailed enough to be "quality". Then perhaps review at 5MP and no higher, for that is good enough to print A4. If it is to encourage people to create and donate their best work, then perhaps the forum isn't working. -- Colin (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps my command of English language is not good enough but I have the feeling that I got either misunderstood or the content of my sentence was truncated. I didn't said that people should only give their best work to Commons. I wanted to express, that for every photo people nominate, they should do their best to get rid of flaws instead of hiding them.

Also, when I started in QIC, I only donated images at a long side size of 2000 px. It might have been after a few days, that the regulars asked me, to contribute a higher resolution, because Commons is not only intended for encyclopedial use but also for projects outside Commons.

It would be much easier for me too, just to relinquish tedious post processing and reduce the upload resolution of my images. Not only would this save me a lot of time but also a lot of the photos that I do not consider to be QI could be nominated here.

However, I do not think, that this is the right path for QIC.

Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The magic word is: reasonable. -- Smial (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not an issue if people do some down-sampling or any other modifications to hide the limitations of their work as not everybody is fortunate enough to use the best equipment. What important for us is gentle flow of free knowledge, fully from the heart and without any pressure. On the other side, we occasionally see some people too here with exact opposite attitude; still wish to collect fancy badges for some other intentions. This also need to be discouraged. I prefer encyclopedic/educational scope of a work over quality as they are the works of me most re-used, off-wiki. Jee 15:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My proposal: Let's kick out the diffuse downsampling "rule" and set up the minimum size for pictures, maybe to 4 MB. --Milseburg (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean with "4 MB"? --LC-de (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably "4 MPixels." -- Smial (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I meant 4 MegaPixel. Sorry. The P has got a tummy to much. --Milseburg (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree about removing the "no downsampling" rule, but minimal resolution should be 2 Mp, not 4 Mp. Otherwise all but just the most recent cameras would be "banned" from nomination. 2 Mp is even more than FullHD, higher resolution may be mostly needed only for printing. --- [Tycho] ^talk 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, these are two different things. We shouldn´t mix them in this discussion. --Milseburg (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

2 MPixels as a hard limit should be kept. This rule excludes extreme downsizing to stamp-size, but allows the promotion of good pictures that were taken under very difficult circumstances or by people who cannot afford high-end camera equipment. We still can demand higher resolution for "easy to take" images. -- Smial (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Personally, I'd love to prohibit excessive photoshopping, artistic reworks, blurring noise suppression, artificially dramatized sky, distorting perspective corrections and the like. Yes, I know that this would not receive approval.

es: Estoy de acuerdo con que las imágenes no deben ser reducidas en su tamaño para aumentar aparentemente su calidad. A pesar de eso, diferentes circunstacias, como la corrección de perspectiva, por ejemplo, pueden suponer que la reducción de tamaño sea adecuada. Prohibir la reducción de tamaño es alterar el libre albedrío de los demás. Sí se puede prohibir para que esas imágenes sean propuestas a QI O FP..., pero tal prohibición carece de sentido, pues si una imagen es buena y el único problema es "downsampling", será aprobada o votada pasando todos los filtros posibles... POR FAVOR (es mi opinión), no perdamos el tiempo en idioteces (= estupideces)--Lmbuga (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination despite Review

What happens with images which are reviewed but remained still in the status Nomination? --F. Riedelio (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They will be cleared by the QICbot after another week as "unassessed". You might either renominate it with the notice "prviously unassessed" or remind the reviewer on his talk page to finish his review. However, sometimes people just want to give a hint but do not feel competent to judge the said image. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Huehueteotl, Teotihuacán.JPG

Hi, I don't understand how this got the QI label. It is far to be a quality image, the foreground is completely overexposed. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

... plus reddish and cyan CA. Well, Yann, the QIC process is somewhat different to FPC as it is usually only one reviewer and there is no need for a supervision procedure. While me and other regulars often do spot checks on the correct assessment, it is neither mandatory nor can this be done thoroughly with the available "staff". This image obviously slipped through. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We will have to live with that. And: there are rather few really bad decisions. In most cases the process works fine. -- Smial (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We've got worse pictures which got the QI label. --Code (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Some thoughts from someone new to QI

I'm a fairly long time contributor to Commons and Wikipedia but have only got involved in the quality images area in the last couple of weeks and thought I'd share some observations. Overall the community has been friendly and criticism of image quality or faux pas I've made has been polite. It's a learning experience and other users have helped rather than hindered. The criticism I've received have helped me improve both my photography and my use of images on Commons, especially categorisation.

With that said, a few thoughts:

Not a problem, but a decision the group seems to have collectively made is that the technical quality (perfect white balance, no noise even at full resolution, perfect focus, etc) is much more important than subjective quality or the relative merit of capturing that specific subject - small fast moving wild animals are judged by the same technical standards as stationary cars in show-rooms.

Resolution / Noise / Focus - Images with any visible noise, compression artefacts or softness of focus at full resolution seem to be rejected, even though if they were scaled from (eg) 16Mpix down to 5 none of that would be visible - surely we want the full resolution version over a downscaled image to be available. Most large images will never be used at full resolution but having that available must be better than encouraging people to down-sample to hide noise / very slight focus issues from the original?

Feedback - most of the feedback has been constructive criticism and is welcomed as it helps the photographer learn - even if they don't always agree on its importance. In a few cases it would be useful to have more specific advice about why an image doesn't meet the standard or what would be expected in order for it to do so. --Prosthetic Head (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prosthetic Head: "Most large images will never be used at full resolution but having that available must be better" - such images will be still available even without assigning QI status. Not every uploaded image has to be QI. --- [Tycho] ^talk 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shansov.net: I agree that not all images need to be QI, just feel that I have seen cases (not my own images) where it would likely have been accepted if given at 'only' 6Mpix but because noise / blur is visible at 20Mpix it is declined. --Prosthetic Head (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prosthetic Head: , well, I have no idea how to fix that. Maybe we should remove sharpness and CA-free criteria? Or maybe create another nomination instead of QI - for example, "8KI", judging by file resolution only :) From my point of view, QI is for technically perfect files (not technical in photographic sense), VI is for useful images and FP is for beautiful images (perfect in photographic sense) --- [Tycho] ^talk 16:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shansov.net: Thanks, that explanation makes sense - perhapse it's not something that can / needs to be fixed...--Prosthetic Head (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

If QI is for technically perfect files we should remove the QI-Template from about 97% of the images. 100% of mine, s.v.p. -- Smial (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

file:Szimpla Kert Budapest 1.jpg

@Hubertl: This picture got the QI label on February 15, 2016 [1] but today User:QICbot added a tag as unassessed Quality Image Candidate [2]. What's wrong with that ? --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Description

File:Texteingabefeld bitte vergößern.jpg

My englsh is very poor, so i write in german:

Gibt es eine Möglichkeit, dieses Eingabefenster zu verbreitern? Mehr muss ich vermutlich nicht sagen, der Sreenshot zeigt alles... Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not eligible

In Category:Quality images of Azerbaijan, half of the photos are by Flickr-only account (not Wikimedian). They have been promoted here against our rules about 2011, no one cared. What to do now? --A.Savin 08:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

remove them. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done. --A.Savin 19:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality standards

Am I alone in thinking that quality standards have dropped? Is one positive vote enough to justify promotion? May be one is enough, if we could be sure the vote is objective. Perhaps we shouldn't be allowed to vote when we have own nominations up for review? Then we wouldn't be tempted to vote for some marginal images, would we, just in the hope that... Charles (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If we were not allowed to review when we have active nominations, we'd never have anyone reviewing. We already have too few reviewers. I have some theories for the perceived change:

• 1) I'm voting again and I generally ignore CAs, perspective distortion, and anything that looks bad at 100% but fine at full screen size (2MP)[1]. This may embolden the like-minded. I also do most of my reviewing on images that have been sitting for at least 5 days that no one else wants to review. I promote (and decline) many borderline images.
• 2) Over a year ago (the last time I was active) there was some attempt at proposing an alternative method to do QIs. This was not successful, but my proposal would have solved your particular issue by increasing the number of votes per image while simultaneously addressing the issue of reviewers with large backlogs of images for review.

Or it could be something else... -- Ram-Man 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Long page

Hi the page is really too long. Could we hide comments by putting them in a drop-down box ? Thanks Archi38 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a good idea, those reviewing lots of images would not find the commented images anymore Poco² 19:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent votes

Strange, how new users like User:ElCreatorDelPhoto, User:Louis GP gouter, User:Cordenth and User:Bouki38 with no uploads instantly find the QI candidates.... --Magnus (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strange indeed, thanks. Ongoing investigation. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfCU Christian! Just saying, I wonder if we should tolerate that kind of single-purpose accounts on QIC, even if CU fails to confirm them. --A.Savin 18:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." in QIC guideline could help! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 per Christian --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 --Hubertl 08:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For ElCreatirDelPhoto I don't know, but for bouki cordenth and me, we're working on a project together, so we discuss about our Wikimedia activity. Louis GP gouter (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read my message on Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ElCreatorDelPhoto#Rationale.2C_discussion_and_results Archi38 (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's move on. Archi38 please excuse me the hasty conclusion. I'm going to remove the votes by the four recently registered accounts, and also the oppose votes based merely on sockpuppetry suspicion, including mine. Hope that is OK, everyone is free to vote again based on quality aspects, as it normally should be. User:ElCreatorDelPhoto, User:Louis GP gouter, User:Cordenth and User:Bouki38 are free to participate in review as soon as 10 days and 50 edits are reached, and of course always free to nominate pictures. --A.Savin 06:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Perfect ! And we will not vote between on our proposals (ElCreatorDelPhoto isn't included cause we don't know him). Archi38 (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Info [3] I changed the guideline as written above for the English version and I will do it for the french, but I wonder of how to change the other languages versions or where to ask for such a change... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the solution (the same we have in the FPC project), but I'm not sure about the process and the way to do, which seems a bit "light". Guidelines are so easy to be changed ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Christian, you have my  Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 Support Sounds reasonable. It took me more than 3 years to discover QI... Poco² 20:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Parece que usted cogió su bienestar tarde ...😜--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, maybe :) but maybe the lack of visibility is something we should work on. Poco² 18:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Christian Ferrer requested TA rights above to update the rules here. Second: –Be..anyone 💩 01:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I support it too. --Hubertl 08:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not eligible images of MUSE

User:Niccolò_Caranti_(MUSE) uploaded several photos to QIC. Some of them acquired already QI. However, the QI label of those photos has to be revoked, as the photographer(s) are not WikiCommoners. Though it is a great honor for WikiCommons, that the museum granted permission for the use of the photos, they cannot participate in QIC (see section "Creator" in QIC guidelines: Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status). I will revoke the QI labels from the photos. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Solution: Convince Matteo De Stefano to be registered with an own account. Sorry, but that are the rules here. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done No response by Niccolò_Caranti or Matteo De Stefano. 4 QI labels removed. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this page be "Quality image candidates"? I think the current title is grammatically incorrect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like only admins have the power to move (and therefore, rename) articles. So would one please move the article to Quality image candidates? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Which article? :) In this case, you have to move all the subpages, including galleries, archives, etc., many of them hopelessly overstuffed and hard to load. I strongly doubt such minor issue is worth all the work, thus  Oppose. --A.Savin 12:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure all the subpages wouldn't be moved automatically? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Never heard of such possibility (but maybe I missed something). --A.Savin 01:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

tilted?

I have see this picture with 100% at 24" and in my eyes it is exactly straight. But I'm teachabe ;) Where the photo isn't straight? I have control the verticales of the building in foreground and the tower. --Ralf Roleček 19:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I loaded this image onto my computer and checked it with Picassa for tilt. I could not see any. The "problem" as I see it is an optical illusion caused by the tower not being photographed square-on. This accentuates the narrowing of the tower on the left-hand side. Martinvl (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Location categories

I have been having a discussion with Uwe @Cccefalon: about location categories for animals I have photographed in Malaysia. Uwe insists that I categorize my image with a very specific category - he suggests Frogs of Sabah. I cannot see anywhere that location categories are essential, though naturally they are useful. In the past, I have left it to enthusiasts to add any categories they like. The 'best' category surely depends on how a user is searching. For this image, I could use Animals of Sabah, Amphibians of Borneo, Amphibians of Malaysia, or I could create Amphibians of Sabah. Another of Uwe's suggestions was to use Category:Danum Valley Conservation Area, but to fit in with other categories I could create Animals of Danum Valley Conservation Area, Amphibians of Danum Valley Conservation Area. Frogs of Danum Valley Conservation Area. But not everyone likes using the layman term frog, so perhaps I should use Anura or create Category:Anura of Malaysia, because there is already a Category:Anura of Singapore. Another suggestion Uwe makes is that I should use the village or locality. The image was taken in the district of Tawau, so I could have used Tawau or create Amphibians of Tuwau etc. etc.
My point is that there is no correct category. It is best for enthusiasts and experts to add categories that they find useful. Most QI editors seem happy with the status quo, but I would like to seek views on this. Charles (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Just another hint: The Sungai Danum entirely flows in Lahad Datu District - not in Tawau District. And no, using category Tawau would leave you as a fool, as this is the town category and not the district category. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The Borneo Rainforest Lodge is in Tawau Division. Charles (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You freely switch between division and district, probably you did not got the difference between District and Division. The division isn't in administrative use any more. What matters are the districts and before you continue with wisecracking, please have a look at the official map "Daerah Lahad Datu" Series MY9111001R Edition 1-PPNM which gives the official boundaries of the districts and clearly shows the lodge within Daerah Lahad Datu. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

Without being braggy, but I think that File:Sandakan_Sabah_Sunbird-in_RDC-03.jpg is perfectly illustrating, how a good and simple categorization can be: One for the species and one for the location where the species was found. More categories are nice, but the "what" and "where" is searchable by the categories. For following up the whole background, please read my input in Consensual Review. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image actually illustrates my point perfectly. Many people would search 'Birds of Borneo' or 'Birds of Malaysia' and that is in fact how bird books are designed. I venture that few would search for Birds of Sabah which is a meaningless concept for a brider. Any endemics would be Borneo, never Sabah which is a political division which few birds recognize. Charles (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I do the same thing that Cccefalon, e.g. on this file, I put the place, the species and the the most accurate connection between the both category trees. Although the naming of such categories should be something like "Photographs of Lepidoptera taken in Hérault" because technically this butterfly can be found in other places and this is not strictly speaking a Lepidoptera of Hérault. But all these categories are currently all named in this same way. Such tools as FastCCI should also logically be able to cross-check a "place" category and a "species" category. But I like the idea of a visible category because not experimented visitors may not have the idea to use the FastCCI tool, myself I rarely use it. It also can be useful and fun to find easily what kind of birds there are in Sabah. A photo should have at least a category for the place and one for the species, but I know some users who are strictly opposed to the categorization of species images with a "place category". I had some verbal clashes and I abandoned the idea of forcing people to do what they do not want to. My opinion is " the best and most accurate" possible categorization in regard to place, species and period, whatever the subject. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't think that 'Lepidoptera of Hérault' is a useful category at all. Too many editors create meaningless categories. 'Churches of Hérault' might be a useful category, but not for insects. 'Moths of France' would be much more useful. I add an exact geocoding to most of my images and where other editors do that I find it most useful. Charles (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I despise the view, that "enthusiasts" should do the annoying categorizing work. I want to remind, that this is QIC - a Quality Image Challenge. Running for quality requires a little bit more than just delivering photographic quality and aiming for minimalizing all other efforts (like categorizing, describing) for getting the QI label. It is beyond my sense of understanding, that an experienced participant of QIC refuses to use the already established location categories for his animal photos, although he exactly knows, that he took them in Category:Bornean Sun Bear Conservation Centre, Category:Danum Valley Conservation Area, Category:Sukau, etc etc etc --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think that @Charlesjsharp: is overlooking the category of writer who is looking for an "interesting" image to illustrate their article. If I am writing about a topic and want some good images to illuatrate that topic, then if I find a generic category and press the "Good Pictures" icon I will get all the FIs, VIs, QIs in that category and its daughter categories. For example, the writer of this blog wanted an image for her article. Nobody would think of looking specifically for a Kelvin/Celsius thermometer, but pressing the "Good Pictures" icon at Category:International System of Units brought the image up. Martinvl (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Good point, but your argument is slightly weakened by the fact your story is not true because your image is not in the gallery Category:International System of Units! Charles (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I think that you missed the point. The image concerned is in Category:Kelvin temperature. This category is a sub-category of Category:SI units which in turn is a sub-category of Category:International System of Units. Although the image itself is not in the "Category:International System of Units", pressing the "Good pictures" button displays all the FIs, QIs and VIs in that category and in all descendant categories which is why it was flagged up. Try it! Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Well I doubt many people know that - I didn't... Charles (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)