Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

(Temporary) file exchage service on Wikimedia servers e.g. for RAW and TIF files

During nominations on QIC or FPC some users offer help with editing images. Two formats are important for lossless image editing: RAW and TIF. There is no possibility for Commons user to exchange such files. For sure one can use Dropbox or similiar plattforms, but I feel more comfortable if the data stay on Commons server. I have a simple file exchange script in mind, like this one (only German): One can upload a single file (or ZIP archive), set a date of expiry and receive a link with a unique ID to the file. Eligible to use this service should only be users with a Wikimedia account.
The question to the QIC community here:

• Is there anyone else who sees a necessity for such a service? If yes, where can we make a proposal?
• Have I overseen tools which are already running on Wikimedia servers? I vaguely remember that Poco has installed such a service on an own server but imho it is a general problem for Commons which should be implemented on official WMF servers.

I look forwards for interesting comments.

--Tuxyso (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tuxyso, it wasn't me, but rather Dcoetzee and I think that you mean this site: http://commonsarchive.org/ . I understand that this kind of service could be useful but after my experience last month I will refrain from uploading or exchanging my RAW files. On the other side if somebody requests help and uploads a RAW file I will for sure help as far as I can with editing. Poco² 09:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Which (negative) experience did you have with exchanging your RAW files? --Tuxyso (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's drop it. I wouldn't like to revive it. Poco² 11:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons supports TIFF files! As for raw files, see my open bug for DNG support at [1]. Most raw formats can be converted to DNG with freeware Adobe tools, as well as open source tools. Commons Archive is intended to be a long-term archive rather than a temporary holding space - my ideal vision is that every user-contributed photo will include the corresponding raw. But Commons Archive faces certain long-term scalability problems, namely, that I can't afford to store more than a few tens of GBs on Amazon S3 without a source of income. I think I need to put some energy into submitting a MediaWiki patch for this. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot problem?

At 22:58 yesterday the bot runs, but there is no information about the promoted images at the discussion boead of the users. What happend? It may be that the bot doesn't work correctly.--XRay ^talk 14:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the bot strikes sometimes. I already stated that the extraction of QI candidates should be undone as soon as possible if you see the bot have done an incomplete run; but still, nobody cares, so what do you expect? --A.Savin 15:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. That's all I expected. ;-) I've seen in the discussion that it's sometimes really difficult.--XRay ^talk 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You may try to restore *just* your own noms. The bot won't do it itself; it will only process candidates which are on the QIC page; once they are extracted without being correctly tagged, they get lost 4ever. --A.Savin 15:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will restore all my old noms (11 Oct) which are not declined. So the bot will handle it.--XRay ^talk 18:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensual Review

I miss votes under Consensual Review. Is there nobody who will look to the images und say what he thinks about them? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sprachproblem?

Mag jemand, der spanisch spricht, mir helfen? Ich habe lmbuga damit wirklich nicht auf die Füße treten wollen, sondern wollte nur wissen, welche Art von artifacts er meinte. Ich konnte an der markierten Stelle nichts besonderes entdecken, außer dem Rauschen, das sowieso überall in dem Bild recht heftig ist. Nach diesem Edit wollte ich das nicht auf der Kandidatenseite in die Länge ziehen und habe deshalb auf seiner talk page noch einmal ausführlicher gefragt. Und nu isser sauer und ich weiß nicht, wie ich das auf englisch geradebiegen soll, was wir beide nicht so besonders gut schreiben. -- Smial (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ich rede mit Miguel, kein Thema. Poco² 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank! Ich fürchtete, auf englisch würde es immer noch schlimmer werden. -- Smial (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive

Please archive old discussions.

Added a MiszaBot config. --Dschwen (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Miszabot isn't running for about 3 weeks now. Status unknown. -- Smial (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tadaa! --Dschwen (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

*juchu* -- Smial (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently promoted - QIHelper V2.0

Hello all. Since the Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted page has been growing a lot recently I decided to spend some time on the categorization helper. I noticed that a few functions had broken over the years. So I present Version 2.0 using shiny jQuery! Changes:

• NEW: Button to hide already categorized images (so you can focus on the uncategorized ones).
• NEW: The edit summary now also shows the fraction of categorized images.
• FIX: Show changes button works again and does not delete all your work (shows an actual diff that will be saved).
• FIX: You can uncategorize an image (this never worked before).

I'm thinking of adding a way to quickly apply a category to multiple images. This may be useful if the categorization workload is high. --Dschwen (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Added the quick apply feature. The last category you selected can be applied with one click to other images by holding (control/command) and clicking the image. --Dschwen (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And again, mass nominations...

Alone for today, I'm counting 35 (in words: thirty-five) QI nominations by User:Achim Raschka and not a single review of other users' nominations by him so far. We have COM:QIC guidelines that clearly state: Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon. To be precise, someone who nominates a lot should also review a lot, because we don't have enough reviewers to not let a big part of nominations remain unassessed, even if everyone regards the guideline and doesn't nominate more than a couple a day. But the spam goes on and it seems to me again that nobody cares. Nearly everyone just wants to blow up their own (or their buddies') QI count as quickly as possible, without giving a shit about the project maintenance. Really poor. --A.Savin 19:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but, what can we do ? Or we write a new rule, as in FPC (I suggest five nominations a day per nominator, and so do I by my own) or we do nothing. I suggest a boycott, or a strike: don't assess images by this user !--Jebulon (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This are Nominations of other photographers, i think, thats a good idea. Why not? --Ralf Roleček 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ralf: weil es die Kapazität dieses Projektes einfach sprengt. Das wurde schon x-mal thematisiert. Dem Projekt wird schließlich nicht geholfen, wenn wir hier dutzende Bilder haben, die etliche Tage ohne Review auflaufen. Allerdings kann man, solange es eben keine feste Regel gibt, hier nur Appelle starten. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ich hab nur mal grob drübergeguckt. Da sind doch schon etliche grüne dabei. Daß Achim nicht selbst bewertet, gefällt mir freilich auch nicht. --Ralf Roleček 20:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I wrote it because several people reviewed some of the lot, without doing care, nor having suggested the guideline to the nominator. (In other words, a strike can only function if there are not too much strikebreakers.) I've also to admit that the 35 noms did not come at once (otherwise I would have reverted), but permamently during today's day. --A.Savin 20:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Achim and partly me have today reviewed hundreds of images for a project in German Wikipedia. Some of them he nominated here and so did I. I believe, he will do more QIC reviews and less nominations in the future, when said project has finished. @A.Savin: This has nothing to do with "buddies" and "giving a shit", we were short of time so it piled up this weekend. -- Smial (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a rule such as, "Each day, the number of images you nominate must not exceed the number of images you review by more than five." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Sooner or later we won't get out of discussing such a rule. For the long term, it really doesn't make any sense for this project that lots of people create own nominations and just a couple of them review anything. --A.Savin 20:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

By now nobody told me about this discussion or asked about reasons - so therewas no chance to react. I was not aware of any mass nomination rule, but ...

I can try to explain: This day I was working on a presentation selection for the upcoming WikiCon, a conference in Germany organized by volunteers that will be held in Karlsruhe the coming weekend. I was asked to prepare a presentation on the results of our Festivalsommer and added by more pics from commons mainly from projects of this year - so I collected a selection of >700 pics for this presentation that will be shown in a random flow the whole two days. To make this work I had to be sure that all pics have a {{de}}-tag so today I had to have a look at all selected pics and add that tag or even a german description if needed, a work of about 5 hours of concentrated work. As a side product I added pics to the QIC helper tool if I thought they would have a chance to become QI and nominated them part by part. As already mentioned nearly all pictures were taken by others than me and I think it is a goog idea to motivate people by getting their pics QI - and for me this is of more value than nominating own pics.

On the other hand you are right that I only rate very few pictures - this is the case because I am afraid of doing a bad job in judging on pictures. As I would describe myself mainly as an author I am no photographer and will not be one even if I try hard to get my own skills trained. With rating pics I feel uncomfortable and so I only judge on those areas I think I can do a good or at least not to bad job. That's it.

So if you think it's a problem to judge on the pics from our colleagues because they were nominated by me (to answer on that "buddy-stuff": I don't know most of those peoples whose pics I nominated and do not rate on pics from the Festivalsommer project)- then delete or ignore them. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have for myself a long queue of potential QI candidates (apart from own images, there are several ones from WLM-RU etc). All I want to nominate some day, I save as bookmarks and let it await its turn, which can last several months because I rarely nominate more than five a day, even in case I reviewed far more same day. Two years ago or so, I didn't have the guts myself to review something here, but we hopefully are all able to learn new things; users who boast with 500 own QI's but do not ever participate actively, do not deserve my respect anyway. (It reminds me of some actually existing users in German wiki, who have 50000+ editcount and 10 years experience and a block log containing several pages, yet still no ability (or no willingness) even to categorize anything properly.) --A.Savin 21:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If i nominate 5 pictures, i trying to rate also 5 or more pics. Sometimes i only rate, sometimes i only nominate. I think, if we all nominate and rate approximately the same number of pictures, all is good? --Ralf Roleček 22:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'm currently on 7 nominations per day, but am regularly reviewing double that number per day, on average. Some days I review none, some days I review 50, but it averages out in my favour. But 35 images is just ridiculous, no matter what. I'm not in favour of a hard and fast limit, because I think that, 1: most people wouldn't read it anyway, 2: that seems to be against the collegial atmosphere of QI. Most often it's not a problem, and a talk page message will suffice to get across our displeasure. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I could not find a message by A.Savin on Achim's talk page concerning this topic. -- Smial (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ständig Bearbeitungskonflikte mit mir selbst / Edit conflicts with oneself while editing candidate list

Habe ich hier ein Problem mit der langsamen DSL-Verbindung? Oder ist die Kandidatenseite inzwischen zu groß für meinen Firefox auf einem älteren Rechner? Nach dem Klick auf Speichern dauert es oft gefühlt eine Minute oder länger, bis die Seite neu aufgebaut wird - und dann wird mir häufig ein BK angezeigt, der ausschließlich meine eigene Änderung enthält. Breche ich an dieser Stelle ab, ohne irgendwas weiter zu ändern oder zu speichern, kommt es mal vor, daß danach, wie zu erwarten nach einem BK, meine geplante Bearbeitung weg ist, nun aber wurde zweimal nacheinander die Bearbeitung DOCH übernommen, obwohl der BK-Screen etwas anderes anzeigte. Ich bin verwirrt. -- Smial (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Geht mir genauso, die Seite scheint zu groß zu sein. --Ralf Roleček 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe mich eh schon gefragt, ob man nicht für jeden Tag einzelne Unterseiten anlegen sollte, die dann eben auch einzeln zu bearbeiten wären. Die Ladezeit für die komplette Seite ist astronomisch. Bei den Featured Pictures geht das doch auch? -- Smial (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Der bot ist ein paar Tage nicht gelaufen (s.o.), da staut sich sofort eine menge Material auf. --Dschwen (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dass die Situation dadurch verschärft wird, ist klar, lange Ladezeiten habe ich aber auch nach dem Aufräumen immer noch. -- Smial (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Fuer mich ist das Jacke wie Hose. Da muesste ich die Bot-Logik etwas anpassen. Ich bin z.Zt. arbeitstechnisch etwas arg angebunden, also waere mir das in etwa zwei Wochen lieber. --Dschwen (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, oh, das war mehr so ein Hilferuf. Solch einen umfangreichen Umbau auf Vorlagen oder was auch immer traue ich mir nicht zu. Auch müßte das wohl zunächst gründlich auf englisch besprochen und mit den anderen abgestimmt werden. -- Smial (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

---

As not everyone of us understands German language and I find the issue very relevant, here a short draft of what's the problem. When editing Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, the connection is building up extremely slowly (especially when there has been no bot run for several days, as it was recently the case), and an edit conflict message comes up every time when other user(s) edited something in the meantime (even if it concerned a different day section which means that there actually shouldn't have been any edit conflict); sometimes also just for no reason (i.e., when the own edit actually has been saved).

A proposal has been made that the candidate list should become subdivided the way that each day's candidates would have a separate page (example: Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/2013-09-23). Which I strong  Support, as it is obvious that QIC currently has far more traffic than 3 years ago and Wikimedia servers often seem to be stretched to their limits with countless thumbnails and templates on one particular page. In future, the traffic here will probably just grow up, so sooner or later we will have to do something anyway. --A.Savin 19:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

thx for translation. Exactly the point. -- Smial (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Drafting the modified workflow with subpages

Ok, lets think about how to do this and how to change the bot to accommodate the changes.

1. A bot creates daily subpages Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/2013-09-23 and adds them as a template inclusion {{/2013-09-23}} on the current candidate list page.
2. Each subpage contains its own candidate gallery and Consensual review section
3. The bot processes all date pages listed on the candidate list page (just like it currently processes the candidate list page)
4. Template inclusions need to be dropped from the candidate list page at some point. Preferably when they are empty. The bot could detect that.
5. We also need to think about the QI gallery pages. Some of them are getting awfully large. The bot could auto archive them once they reach a certain size (oversized QI gallery pages are currently the number one bot breaker). --Dschwen (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

ad 2: I don't know if this is possible (or managable), but I believe it would be better to keep the consensual reviews on one single page. Otherwise some could easily be overlooked by reviewers. ad 5: Perhaps we need more diversification with these pages. -- Smial (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, all day's CR better should be on one page (Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list/Consensual review). To avoid traffic problems in QI galleries, I suggest to subdivide each gallery by year of promotion (Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Man made structures/2013). All (including the bot adjustment) should be quite easy to manage, as I think. --A.Savin 11:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, it is probably about time to do this restructuring. Today the bot already had 3 failed attempts to run (all 503 API errors). --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I had 7 e/cs trying to just change "Discuss" to "Decline" the other day... -mattbuck (Talk) 06:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A pity that no one cares anymore. Most people seems to only find nominations of own images interesting. --A.Savin 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. As for me, I have no special opinion, because I'm not sure I understand all. And I've no enough knowledge how solving technically this kind of issue. But I'm interested.--Jebulon (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Same here. There are scripts and subpages and templates and... don't know what else is to be considered. Who can help? -- Smial (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Again: Two attempts necessary to insert some nominations, and four attemts to insert a review/promotion for one image. Needed 10 minutes. EC. EC. EC. EC. No fun. -- Smial (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support That would help. I stopped review here, as the page is too big for me. One subpage a day would be OK. Yann (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Flooding

Dear Jebulon, my friend, You are right what regards flooding according to the QI guidelines which allows only two nominations. I've seen that it has become costomary to post many more nominations than those allowed. I'm working very hard on the project of German WP to illustrate the monuments of South Tyrol as you know and you appreciated it. It is my purpose in this project to have as many as possible pictures of the project with the seal of QI so I don't think I m without respect of the reviewers but that my intentions are those of Wikipedia. I don't understand that you are so angry at me for that. BTW you have much more pictures qualified as QI in the same period. I don't even feel right that you wrote that note on every single picture I nominated because I think that is not the right place. Please delete your improper comments, while I will add a specific description for every nomination. Let's remain freinds with best regards--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wolfgang! IMHO Jebulon draws the attention to an important problem: Surely, your photos are VERY valuable for de-WP or Commons as a whole. But mass nominations (without aedequately reviewing other photos) is not beneficial for the QIC process. With your nominations other photos are less visible and receive not enough attention to become reviewed. I agree with Jebulon (from above) that there should be a certain limitation e.g. max 5 (or 3) noms per user. If this limit is exceeded at least the same amount of photos should be reviewed before nominating further own photos. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK,OK. Who are you btw? I apologize but surely I'm not the only flooder around... Surely the guidlines have to be adapted. In a way they are contradictory to the purpose of Commons to load as many good images as possible. Surely the rule of reviewing as many images as uploaded is good but some like to upload and some like to review. I don't feel it a great problem and I promise to review more often in the future. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missing signature. It was me. I would not call you "flooder". But you are right there are other contributors especially from mass projects like "Landtagsprojekt" who nominate several images at a time. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wolfgang: I would also prefer the relation between those who nominate and those who review to be nearly symmetrical (i.e., as you wrote, some like to upload and some like to review). Unfortunately this symmetry isn't there, it's part of reality that projects like QIC and FPC attract far more people who see them as a sort of "vanity fair" than those who want to help to maintain. The result is that lots of pictures remain unassessed, and as you can guess, if you nominate ten pictures at once, the probability that ALL of them will get reviewed before the bot comes to put them to Category:Unassessed QI candidates is very, very small. On the other hand, my nominations (just to take an example) rarely remain unassessed, although I would by no means claim that my pictures were particularly eye-catching or so. Instead, it's probably because I never nominate more than 3-5 pictures a day, and nearly always review other people's nominations. So, anyone who places value on "fair play" on QIC and wants to see as few own nominations unassessed as possible, shouldn't nominate more than a couple a day and should regularly review. Btw, we don't need to open a new thread on this topic, as the thread just above is exactly about "flooding". Now, although I understand Jebulon, I've to say that I'm neither comfortable with his comments; he should have used your user talk page or this talk page instead. --A.Savin 22:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is allways a good idea, first and foremost to use the user talk page if you want to make someone aware of an individual error. The QIC talk page is afair meant for general problems. -- Smial (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. Since I know the QIC page, it is not the first time we have this kind of problem. I've tried in the past some personal communications with "flooding" (notice the " ") users, without any success. So my way to react is deliberate, even if I'm sorry for Moroder, because I like very much his photos. But his way for nominating is at least discouraging (I tried to review one, and made some mistakes because I assessed a wrong one: their names where too similar), and, sorry, shows a lack of respect for reviewers. As for me, I've tons of pictures waiting for a nomination. Trying to elaborate a special local project is maybe good, but some months ago, one of us had a project about all the churches around his city, and he never nominate too many images in the same time. Take it easy, we get the time ! And my own way to do with my repetitive comments was a good thing: there is a discussion. Btw, the solution one nomination = one review is of course a farce in a real world. My proposal is strictly: 5 nominations a day per nominator. Thank you--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, following the QI guidelines, all the 13 pictures by Moroder should be declined because of a lack of categorization at the relevant level, and lack of description..."Saint Maurice in Sauders" is not enough for this very good picture, which could also take place here, for instance... Or there is no more QI guidelines, and everybody can do everything. "Commons" is to be useful, and is not only a concentration of images. Other sites exist.--Jebulon (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy that. Jebulon, please! I admit I exaggerated to post 13 images at once, but those are images of a set that documents a little jewel of church and the images are all categorized under Category:St. Moritz in Sauders which in turn is in these categories: Churches in Villanders,Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bolzano-Brixen,Cultural heritage monuments in Villanders,Saint Maurice churches,Saint Maurice churches in Italy. The category is also linked to a project on WP. Therefor you can't say it's "only a concentration of images" and send me somwhere else, please! But anyhow, I pardon you, since you are such a great admirer of my photos ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing a "Decline" into a "Support"

Bonjour everybody, I have a question

1) a user nominates a picture

2) a first reviewer declines (red frame) with explanations.

3) the nominator makes a correction (and writes:  Done)

4) another reviewer writes that it is good now, and supports directly (changing the red frame in a green one), saying "if the first reviewer disagree, then he should push himself the image in CR".

As I have never seen this before (although I think I'm an old regular here now...) I have a question: Is this allowed ? Thanks for sharing opinions.--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

•  Support I like this proposal, I think that would save a lot of work at the time of the re-nominations. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I understand the idea and its good faith but don't agree with it. The reason is that the first reviewer may not look at the nomination again (yes, I know it concerns one of the reviews). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't ask for a vote here, it is just a question about the current rules, because there is such a case in the moment in the QIC page and I'm a bit shocked. It is not a proposal at all !!--Jebulon (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As for me, only the user who originally declined may change the frame from red to green bypassing the CR (and only if no further oppose votes were added by someone else in the meantime). --19:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with whoever didn't sign correctly - only the original reviewer may change a decline to a promote (or vice versa), anyone else must go via Discuss. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Same opinion as Matt. I think that since I am here I just moved from Decline to Promote 3 or 4 times. I usually take care that a Decline cannot be saved (otherwise I let it blue and write a comment), and therefore I wouldn't really expect that others "do it for me". Poco² 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mattbuck. As for myself I can say: I only decline an image if I think an improvement to meet QI criteria is not easily possible (or has been failed after several attempts). Even though a new version is uploaded I would like to check myself if my former arguments (no possibility to correct) is still valid. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In general, I think this does need to go to CR. But in the case of obvious and objective errors (e.g, promoting a non-Commoner work or declining a Commoner work with the reason that it is not by a Commoner) can be reversed directly. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, the talk is about my action, that I took unmindfully yesterday. I am sorry to stir up troubles. Indeed, I was not 100% sure about the correct procedure, so I included in the comment, that I would not mind, if it will be turned back to yellow. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to leave a hint on the project page. My apologies again, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Main "skip to nominations" not working

"=Nominations=" probably needs to be changed in "==Nominations==" for fixing the "Skip to nominations" at the top of the main page. I did not edit it cause the advise "do not edit this page" and for not interferring with bots. -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 10:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be fixed (it is worrking in it's current state). The bot should not care about this change. --Dschwen (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

QIVoter helper!

It has become customary to insert comments  Comment before voting for a photo. I would like to have a comment button featured on the QIVoter bar to make that task easier --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wie konnte es dazu kommen?

Hallo! Ich würde gern erfahren, wie es dazu kommen konnte, da ich schon mindestens ein halbes Jahr nicht mehr hier aktiv war und ebensolang auch kein Bild hier vorgestellt habe. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Weil Anna reg dein Bild gemocht hat Poco² 19:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Danke, es ging mir dabei vor allem darum, daß in der Benachrichtigung steht, ich selbst hätte es promotet. Und es fehlt in der Benachrichtigung auch ein Link zu den Kommentaren, aber darkweasel hat mir inzwischen schon weitergeholfen. Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Häferl, da hast Du dich wohl verlesen, oder den text falsch verstanden. In der Benachrichtigung steht nur, dass Du das Bild entweder Nominiert oder Produziert hast, nicht, dass Du es es selbst ausgezeichnet hast. --Dschwen (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, ich meinte nominiert. "produced or" hatte ich aber tatsächlich überlesen (hatte mich ja richtig erschrocken als die Nachricht kam, weil ich nichts von der Nominierung mitbekommen hatte und das auch gar nicht gewollt hätte). Liebe Grüße, --Häferl (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Something new with the QICbot?`

I noticed that since two days photos for CR were no more moved to the top of the queue but at its end. What happened? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change anything. Maybe someone changed the markup of the page which confused the bot? --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea either. I manually moved the yesterdays CR nominations to their proper location but today it occured again. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

When someone added the autotranslate section, they messed up and nuked the top level CR section and some bot placeholders. Fixed now I think. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Eligible contributors

I recently ran a Wikitakes event supported/promoted and operated by a chapter this got me thinking is someone who participates in an event like that where we use bots to do the uploading eligible for QI nominations. I thought is that they are providing the image directly to here but not uploading themselves, the recognition of a QI maybe enough to encourage continued participation... I realise that the QI process is for own works and these kinda fit that mould but its grey because of the upload process. My inclination is to say yes as they are participants in an associated event whos aim is to encourage further participation, but most wont have User accounts at the time of their contribution. Gnangarra 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that view, as they are clearly taking pictures with the aim of benefiting Wikimedia projects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

However, I should add that if they are not uploading the images themselves, then COM:OTRS is required. It might just be easier for them to make their own accounts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Eligible votes for CR

As I do not know all intricacies of the QI rules, I wonder if a vote is eligible in the following case: A reviewer is trying to resolve a flaw of a photo on its own account during CR. After that he states, that he resolved the flaw and is supporting the nomination. Can this vote be eligible for the QICtotal? Thanks for clarifications, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it ought to be okay. Otherwise, if you like a nomination that has been opposed for a correctable flaw, you have an incentive dilemma: do you add a support vote, or do you fix the problem? If you take the first route, you risk others (rightfully) opposing for the same reason. If you take the latter, you risk others ignoring the nomination (after your edit) for long enough to timeout. By allowing both, this is not an issue. When I upload a corrected version of someone else's photo, I feel like I'm just helping out a friend, and do not wish to take any credit for it, so supporting after editing it would not be a conflict of interest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. If I do not like an image already, I would not try to repair small flaws. -- Smial (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds reasonable. Thank you for clarification! --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel that if you make a modification to the image itself then you cannot promote it yourself. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mattbuck, it seems to be unfair, and not very elegant "look how my job is good ! It deserves a promotion". As for myself, when I make a modification, I don't vote, and I explain why.--Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 Poco² 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

So, when I once voted against a candidate, I may not rework that image during the period of candidation? -- Smial (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, just you may not support your own work.--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Except I do not consider that my own work if I merely make a modification to it. In particular, QIC doesn't have that many regulars, so one person makes a large difference. It would be unfair for certain photos to have two people not be allowed to vote on it when for for all other photos, only one person is not allowed to vote on it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd never come to the idea to consider my own work a photo made by another photographer but modified by myself, no matter how heavily modified. So, my conclusion: edited = still allowed to vote. --A.Savin 15:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it my own work as such, but I would feel that given I had participated in it being elevated to a level where I think it's QI, I could not myself vote for it. If you want to oppose it despite your edits, sure why not. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

From a QIC point of view (if I may say), yes, it is "your" work. It means :"Before your work = not QI. After your work = QI". That's what I call "promoting own work". But no offense, I think we don't need any new rule: everybody can do what he wants, especially regarding the volume or the significance of the improvements. I think a kind of (I repeat: "kind of") canvassing is in this case admissible in direction of a third part not involved. "Hi, I think I have improved this image, but, as my work is here important, I think I can no more vote, matter of courtesy. What do you think ?", or something like that.--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I never claim those reworks, typically dust spot remove oder perspective correction or some noise and sharpening rework as my own work, so I never get a QI-Bapperl for that, and I never want one for that kind of small rework. -- Smial (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand I've seen some CR where reworks were made, but no one of the forme decliners reviewed, so the reworked image did not get a pro though it has been made better than before. -- Smial (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ps: @mattbuck (and Moroder, if he reads this), would you please review [2] as you critisized old versions of the image and then never were seen there again. -- Smial (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that if you like an image, but it has some minor flaw, there are two ways you can help its chances of success: by supporting it or by uploading a correction of the flaw. And in many cases (especially when there is light traffic and the original reviewers are not around to see any corrections made), the former option is more likely to help the chances of success, while the latter makes for a better image. This results in a better image being declined when a worse version of the same image would have been promoted. To avoid this problem, we can just let people both edit and vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Smial, A. Savin et al. I would not fuss about the aspect of patting your own shoulder too much. As far as I see we are talking about minor technical improvements. The only thing the voter gets at most is the satisfaction of having helped another image to enter the QI pool. It is not like you are giving yourself a barnstar or something. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with Dschwen wise opinion. I know that I am a bit "extremist" some times: for instance, I disagree that the CR sub-page should be accessible for the author of a declined picture, as a "Court of Appeal"... But it is another discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification for nominated images?

I am not sure, if the QICbot is doing that already, but I wonder, if people get a notification in the case that someone else is nominating their work for QI. This would be helpful especially in the case, that further request from the reviewers need the attention of the photographer.
So far, I had unfortunately to decline photos where some efforts of the author easily could achieve QI status but finally the photo ended with "not done". --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Another question about the QICbot

A recurrent problem with the QICbot : five times within 15 days (24th & 30th of November, 3rd & 6th & 9th of December) I didn't receive the notifications for promoted pictures on my discussion page. I'm not the only one : a few weeks ago, I noticed someone brought back his non-notificated pictures on the QIC page so as to have them treated by the bot. This is a solution but, according to the different problems that sometimes occur, I don't think it's the best one. So I made a few auto-notifications on my discussion page, with a link to the archive, of course. Is it useful to speak of this problem here ? Is it possible to solve it ? (It's sometimes useful to have a look at some former comments, dates and names). -- Thanks in advance. --JLPC (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

QI and derivative work

Hello everybody.

I have a question:

Is a derivative work from a QI, a QI by itself ?

Do we have a policy about that ?

This picture: File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1.jpg was chosen as a QI. After that, the picture was deleted because of a copyright violation. Another user corrected the picture, and made this : File:Vitra Design Museum nachts1 - with result of DR.jpg, in order to keep in "Commons" a very good picture. But this second version is very different from the deleted one, was not nominated as candidate in the QIC page, and therefore not tagged as QI in its file description page. Nevertheless, it is now integrated in the category "QI by XXX", (the first uploader of the deleted version -Taxiarchos228-, not the author of the new version -Rillke-). I have no special opinion about this case, then I'm interested by yours. Thoughts ? Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO this image is not automatically a QI, therefore I have removed the QI-categories. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok for me. -- Smial (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Should be nominated as QIC now, I think.--Jebulon (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Template parameters

I have changed the /Nomination (etc) templates so that a 3rd parameter can be parsed, and will be added on to the end of the 2nd. Please try not to use it, but it should mean that accidental double comments do show. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have it print a big fat warning, otherwise a) I'll have to fix the bot an b) people will think this is accepted syntax, which will make "argument number four" make the next problem. --Dschwen (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I did consider adding 4... OK, I'll make it a warning. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

They will all now show Commons:Quality images candidates/Warning if there's an issue: WARNING: third template parameter added – please remove.. Feel free to amend it. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, mattbuck! --Dschwen (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could make it more specific, like please replace the last "|" by "<br/>" – I'm not sure how many ppl know what a "parameter" is supposed to be. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

QI nominator

I used the QI nominator gadget to nominate three works by a new user, only to find I needed to include the uploaders name in the nomination. This issue has been raised on the gadgets talk page some 6 weeks ago but has not received any responses.. is it possible to have this fixed. Gnangarra 01:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Good point. I probably didn't see that. Let me think about it. --Dschwen (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This change should make the QInominator do what you want. Let me know if it works for you. --Dschwen (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It works thanks Gnangarra 01:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very useful, thx! -- Smial (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Enduring bot problems?

I noticed that the assessments that were moved to December 7 some days ago are still not processed by the bot. Are there still problems with the bot? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Those would be new problems. And indeed Special:Contributions/QICbot shows that the bot seems to be taking some time off. Odd. I'll investigate. --Dschwen (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, bot forgot his password. Grmpf! --Dschwen (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting it fixed. The project page is now cleaned up. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, Dschwen. Probably the bot needs another push to wake up and following up his daily duties. Or is the bot sleeping longer on Sundays? :) --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Abuse filter for COM:QIC?

See Commons:Village_pump#Abuse_filter_for_COM:QIC? --A.Savin 18:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation

Template:QIC-N and Template:QIC-R can now be translated. Users are invited to help with the translation. :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrongly promoted QI

Hello,

I found 2 images which were wrongly promoted as QI. These are not made by Wikimedians, so they should not be QI:

• File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpg. In addition, I could not find where it was nominated.
• File:Handschrift Brussel p-37-38.jpg

Is it OK to removed the QI tag, and remove them from the QI categories and galleries? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for sure. --A.Savin 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, done. Yann (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem user Sebastian Wallroth

There appeared a new user, Sebastian Wallroth. Beside the fact, that he disturbed the site with mass flooding, he started to override running reviews with support where issues were raised by other reviewers. How should we handle that? Removing his reviews or sending all the photos to CR? --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For quick review: here --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make problems. Looks like I've got something wrong with the review process. How should I behave in the future? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I interpret the QIC rules corretly, there is nothing wrong to change from Nomination to Promote (regardless if there are comments). We have a gentleman's agreement not to promote if there are fixable issues, but the mistake is on the side of the first reviewer (I and many others do the same). The correct process would be: Some (fixable) issues? If yes, change to Decline. If the issues are solved, the photographer can change to Discuss. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Normally, I consider reviews with comments only (no promotion or decline) as neutral votes, so changing to promotion by an other user afterwards is not necessarily critical. However, a second reviewer should then take a look at the image and send it to the CR if there are indeed serious quality issues that have not yet been fixed. In this particular case, it makes sense anyway. Sebastian Wallroth reviewed dozens of nominations in one minute, which makes me doubt that he had seriously examined all of that pictures. --A.Savin 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

If that's in a single edit, that's the way I work - get them all up, examine, decide, then in a single edit review upwards of 20. As for the quality issue, I consider that if someone leaves a comment eg "dust spots", that is an  Oppose, but a conditional one. If within 5 days or so the issue hasn't been fixed then change to decline. But people shouldn't promote such an image unless the issue has been fixed. If they believe that is not an issue, they can send it to discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, having looked in more detail, I have a few comments to make.

• Sebastian, first off, welcome to QI, and thanks for taking the time to review images.
• There's no need to add your own  Support to an image which is already set to be promoted! It's nice to see you support them, but by editing it you actually delay that image's promotion. Images are only removed from QIC when tagged as /Promotion or /Decline after 2 days have passed since the most recent timestamp in the description.
• I think you need to up your standards for what you promote. For instance you changed File:Ling yang.jpg to /Promotion, despite it being extremely noisy, having bad JPEG artifacts, chromatic noise and significant areas of overexposure. File:Maua Bahnübergang.jpg has bad chromatic aberration (look at the traffic signal), and so, at present, should probably not be promoted. QI is about details - anyone can take a camera, point it at something and get the focus about right - but to take an excellent photo takes much more work. Thought needs to be given to composition, exposure, perspective, tilt, as well as fixing issues such as barrel distortion, dust spots or chromatic aberration.
• Take your time - there's no need to rush. It's better to slow down and get it right. If you find yourself getting edit conflicts, edit only sections, and copy the section to clipboard before you would press submit, then refresh the page, paste in your edits and press submit.

I hope you enjoy your time here. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanations. I have to study the examples more to get things like overexposure and chromatic aberration. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Overexposure means that there are areas of #FFFFFF (pure white) in the image, which causes loss of detail. For instance File:Strata Florida - walls 2.jpg is overexposed - the bright areas of the clouds have lost detail. There can also be channel overexposure, where an area is for instance #FF0000 (pure red). However, areas of pure white in an image do not necessarily mean it cannot be QI, but if they cause a loss of detail then that is a bad thing. Also watch out for people who remap an overexposed image so that what was white is now grey - the detail has still been lost. Underexposure can also be an issue, but is a lot less common.

Chromatic aberration is because different frequencies of EM waves (different colours of light) refract differently, causing fringeing. You usually find a particular lens will cause a particular type of CA - mine for instance tends to cause purple/green. This is most visible in areas of sharp contrast, for instance the white surround of the black traffic signal in File:Maua Bahnübergang.jpg. You can see red/cyan fringeing around it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A quality image below 2MP

I found this one: File:Mamayev Kurgan - Vechnii Ogon.jpg by User:High Contrast

It is clearly below 2 MP. It was promoted on 2009-05-19. Did we already have the 2MP rule at that timepoint? If yes: the image should be speedily removed from QI. --A.Savin 11:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You will find many QIs below this line, especially older ones. You must read the guidelines carefully: "...should normally have at least 2 megapixels..." - that clearly means that a image reviewer must not automatically follow this point. The reviewer in in 2009 did obviously think that this doesn't play an important role for him and nobody controverted. That's all fact. As such there is no reason for removing the QI-badge. --High Contrast (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I experience (and I've been on QIC for several years now), any nomination below 2 MP is subject to decline. --A.Savin 19:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a possible way - the QI-regulation cited above allows you to do so but it (per this regulation) also allows you to promote it when you are convinced by its quality. --High Contrast (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We should also consider that what we read on COM:QIC is an excerpt of Commons:Image guidelines, which is a guideline both for QIC and for FPC. Featured pictures can in some exceptional cases have below 2 MP (and so do several of FP's promoted about 2006/07). As for me, the word "normally" refers to the exception with SVG graphics and it is pretty self-evident that a QI has to have at least 2 MP. It would be ridiculous to speak about a "quality" image that you even cannot print as a 9x13 cm photo and even the cheapest ones of modern cameras provide 10MP and more. --A.Savin 23:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We have too many "should", " could", "would" in our rules. That's due to the search of consensus, a topic of Wikimedia. And that is for sure politically correct. The result is such a ridiculous debate, where somebody is of bad faith, but it is forbidden to say more... As a QI frequent user, I think I'm not illegitime to make the following proposal (only for the future, of course, because the current rule is ambiguous and subject to various interpretations):

Proposal for a change of the QI rules

The words : "...should normally have at least 2 megapixels..." are replaced by the words " ...must have at least 2 megapixels...".

•  Support as nom.--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --A.Savin 23:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because we are excluding a number of important contributions especially from developing countries. IMHO --The Photographer (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Some statistics, please ? How many contributions did we exclude recently ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose As for The Photographer. Images should not be extremely scaled down without a good reason, but sometimes it is necessary because of difficult photographic situations or technical limits of the equipment. The reason why a low-resolution image is presented, should of course be specified. -- Smial (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you provide some examples or situations, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment "must have 2 megapixel" is good for new images. But there may be a lot of old images which does not have 2 megapixel. IMO photos taken 2012 or later should or must have at least 4 megapixel.--XRay ^talk 10:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose I believe the question is not substantial for a good even excellent photo--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is...--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Why? Is the quality of a painting the number of brushstrokes? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
      • "Comparaison n'est pas raison"...--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose why? the quality of a photo is not the border Megapixel. --Ralf Roleček 17:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is...--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. --Ralf Roleček 12:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
      • This is not a QI, this is a FP. The FP rules accept mittigating circumstances. Not the QI's. Furthermore, this is a 10 years old picture. I speak only for the future.--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Wolfgang and Ralf --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality of a photo doesn't define itself by the number of megapixels. -- Felix König ✉ 14:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support with alterations - perhaps something along the lines of "photographs must be at least X megapixels", as this then excludes the diagrams etc that I believe the "should normally" is meant to provide for. I would however support an increase over 2MP, as frankly nowadays that is very very small. As for the argument that we are excluding developing countries, I say that is irrelevant - we are concerned with the quality of the image, not its provenance (so long as it's a wikimedian). We don't grant people from the first world an exception because they only have a 2005 cameraphone. If it's not up to scratch, it's not QI, we do not do extenuating circumstances. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Oppose Several reasons: (1) As Mattbuck says the megapixel rule only makes sense for photographs, its not helpful for non-photographic media (though many should be SVGs). (2) Resolution is only one aspect of picture quality, and resolution is not the same as pixel count. If an image has insufficient detail resolved, given context, that's the issue not that it doesn't have enough pixels. eg A 2.5 MP pano which is 5000px wide, and 500px high, is never QI, a photo of a historic document isn't QI unless you can resolve the text, etc. (3) A hard rule encourages bad practice by photographers at the margins, like upsampling (which if minor would be nearly undetectable), not cropping sufficiently. (4) it also encourages bad practice by reviewers, failing an image at 1.99MP when they would have passed at 2.01MP - the 1% improvement in pixel count doesn't magically make it quality, nor does the 1% drop lose it. (5) Retro-active downgrading is a bad thing, which causes far more harm than good, and is clearly a motivation here
• Also any increase in the minimum level (due to better cameras) is IMO to miss the point. Quality is about the re-usability of the image, not the quality of the camera that took it. Its easier to take very high pixel-count images than it was 5 years ago, but it was still easy to get at least 4MP images back then with a decent camera. However a good 2MP image is at least as useful today as it was 5 years ago. If 2MP isn't enough pixels for certain uses that are significant today, that provides the justification for a rise in the threshold - improved camera tech doesn't.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment A good photo is an art work and a technical job. QI are images also with a quality content, even the description and cathegorization counts. What makes them different from FP is imo mainly the wow factors, QI photos don't need to be special, they have to be good which imo again does not mean to have not a few pixels of CA or OE (QI guidelines speak of relevant defects) or some blurred parts. The MAIN issue also for QI imo is the content, the composition we should not forget that, not the size, the resolution. We are working for an encyclopedia not for a photo contest!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We are working not only for encyclopedia, we are working for free content. Wikipedias are only one of our subsequent users. --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Words words words. There are other sites for upload free content. Of course we are mainly working for an encyclopedia.--Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose no need for such a rule, arguments already said --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I will continue to oppose for too small pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your diehard originality is well known. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

?? A personal attack instead of your beloved facts ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support, at least for photographs. 2 MP is not a harsh requirement at all for any technical equipment that is able to produce quality images based on all other requirements (leaving out perhaps the very first DSLRs like a D1, which are at least 12 years old by now). I do not think that this realistically restrict contributions from less affluent users.
  I am certain that in at least 98% of cases, high quality, but low resolution images are caused by the post-processing of the photographer (either by choice (Ralf's image presented here a perfect example) or by limited competence). Therefore, I would argue that hardly any sub-2 MP-decline is actually based on the fact that the original file was less than 2 MP, and that's why I do think that this threshold is sensible to motivate users to provide better quality content.
  Of course I know that many do not have access to a DSLR, but even my useless mobile phone shoots at 3 MP. I often find myself clicking on images used in Wiki to see more, only to find that they are hardly larger than the preview - IMO QI should also tell a user that there is more to the image than the standard size preview.
  Frankly, I'm with Jebulon on declining smaller images regardless of any other feature. Call that what you want, but usually that has motivated contributions of higher resolution by the users who had their image rejected. I think that is desirable.
  To those that argue that quality is not defined by resolution: Is it also not defined by sharpness? I think the very definition of QI is checking whether the technical quality of an image is good, not whether it would give a good postcard motive. Almost all technical flaws can be hidden in a 2 MP image, let alone a smaller image. I guess even images at ISO 12800+ from any recent DSLR or mirrorless would be promoted easily at 2 MP. In my opinion, QI and a good image are not the same by definition and they do not have to.
  Will users benefit from higher res images? I think so. So I think that it is sensible to make this a binding requirement for the very basic proof of quality that QI is. --DXR (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, you've just provided a justification for low resolution imagery, and a way to assess whether the post-processing (normally involving downsampling) is acceptable and the resulting image QI. Just to look at high ISO - it would be silly to accept a day-lit landscape at ultra-high ISO, which is true whether its a free-from-defect 2MP image or a noisy 16MP affair. Downsampling might cover up the noise, but its still vastly inferior to what the photographer could have taken had they used the right settings.
• In contrast, consider a situation where high ISO is actually useful. eg concert photography (getting a fast shutter speed in very low light, means cranking up the ISO, even with a fast lens). The big, sharp image never could have existed, so you are left with the basically equivalent small, sharp image or big, noisy one. The (generally sensible) ideological dislike of downsampling, is nothing to do with the quality of the image itself in that sort of case.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I see your point, but isn't 2 MP a sensible border to stop downsampling? I do not intend to outlaw downsampling, just want it within reasonable limits. --DXR (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• 2 MP is a reasonable threshold, yes, and we have it in practice already, and furthermore its understood as such by reviewers and photographers ensuring downsampling doesn't go too far. What converting from a soft to a hard limit does is prevent recognition of those rare, extreme cases, where a sub-2MP image might be reasonable - and shuts down discussion of their merits before it starts. On a similar note I'd like to see images to being declined at QI for 'insufficient detail/resolution', when they are in the 2-4 MP range and we don't need to increase the threshold for a 3 MP landscape to be sub-standard.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support A rule must to be clearly explicit. --Christian Ferrer 18:58, 29 February 2014 (UTC)

And again...

Looking at the discussion straight above, I get the impression that most discussants are unwilling to understand the purpose of it all. As stated above (and ignored by all of you), it is self-evident that we HAVE the 2MP rule. So we just should decide if we want a more clearly framed guideline than what we already have, and not if we should disallow pictures <2MP, because the latter is already the case since a long time. So, my question is still, if this image shall remain a QI, given the fact that it is way below 2MP and not taken under special circumstances like for concert photography etc.. It was promoted in 2009. Again: Did we have the 2MP guideline as of 2009? It happens sometimes that pictures which actually are ineligible for QI (e.g. Flickr uploads) being mistakenly promoted; then they can be removed from QI again. Perhaps it was the case here. The user who promoted it may have not had noticed the low resolution. I still cannot see any suggestions from any of the discussants above; except the original uploader who is of course interested in keeping this picture a QI, and also obviously not willing or not able to provide same picture in original/higher resolution. Instead, the discussion is gradually leaving the factual level. Really poor, but sadly not surprising. --A.Savin 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure if I understand your intention here: I think you are wondering whether it would be reasonable to introduce a clear process for de-QI-fying (for the lack of a better term) images which shouldn't be QIs for failing formal rules (like not being taken by a commoner). Or are you also including the softer aspects such as insufficient sharpness? I personally think that the image presented by you is far from a QI (not only because it is small, but also unsharp and noisy), however I do obviously not have years of experience at QIC. One might wonder if there should be a process that removes QI for soft issues in a way resembling a CR, let's say at least three delist votes and 2:1 majority. However, is it worth the effort? In any case, I think there should at least be rules that allow a simple QI removal on formal issues (size, authorship, categorizing) --DXR (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  I don't care to go through a denomination process - there are thousands upon thousands of QIs, and reviewing them all is unnecessarily time-consuming. I say we just accept that some images were promoted when there were lower standards. Regarding the 2MP thing, I have always considered it a rule for photos. Any photo under 2MP is frankly not big enough, and even 2MP is a bit ridiculous when you consider that even compact cameras take 10MP now. I encourage a rule change which clarifies it as a rule for photos and a suggestion for other images. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

  Changing the word "should" to "must" doesn't change the rule itself, nor its interpretation in the overwhelming majority of cases. It does eliminate the wriggle room that may make a sub-2MP image acceptable in certain cases (eg due to extreme technical difficulty?), making those classes of photos outright ineligible for QI.

  The image in question probably shouldn't have been passed as QI, but that doesn't justify its speedy removal (or any sort of removal) - given the lack of a delist process. The QI status of that image, and others like it, justifies a discussion-based delisting process. A re-review process is a good idea in some ways, but is a classic doomed-to-fail perennial proposal in others. Without consensus acceptance of the principle of delisting, you can't delist eligible images.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't need timewasting delist procedures. But images ineligible for QI according to our minimal requirements (2 MP and taken by a wikimedian) have to be speedily removed from QI if mistakenly promoted, that's all. --A.Savin 10:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A speedy delist is not the right approach for the reason of how it could impact the uploader: Submit QI, Congratulations for your QI, no wait it isn't go away. That's needlessly antagonistic (and those circumstances don't apply to a non-wikimedian image). A typical image under 2MP passing is comparable to an image with bad technical flaws somehow getting through, both are mistakes in the process.

Stopping the images getting through is bot-able: A bot could scrape new QICs and add " Comment Under 2MP", letting a human find it and decline, while allowing potential for a consensual review in the cases where it might be ok.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)