Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Removal of QI status

I haven't find out how to start a discussion about QI status removal. This image is quite sub-standard per comments here. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 13:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's bizarre. Promoted 6 January, 2024 (link - 13th line) by Damayantidwi (user page doesn't exist) and Eka343 (author). Tournasol7 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was obviously promoted against the rules. Don't know how to demote it though, is it enough to remove the template? Plozessor (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no process to demote a quality image. However, the nominator's vote is obviously invalid. And User:Damayantidwi has less than 50 edits on Commons, but considerably more on other wikis. So the question is whether their vote was also invalid. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• This Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eka343 is confirmation enough to remove QI as a bad faith edit, as well as removing QI from the other 5 promoted at same the time. Those that arent by Eka343 should be renominated so as not to be tainted by these events. The innocent victims should be notified of why the changes. This should only happen once the the CU request is closed and any blocks are in place. Gnangarra 06:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Why only Commons user's file are eligible?

I am just curious as to why quality images must be the work of Commons contributors? As a consumer of Commons' images, I don't care if they came from NASA, flick or a Commons user. Of course I greatly appreciate that Commons users are the backbone of this project though. Commander Keane (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Mmm I should have read the Flickr section above before posting, sorry. As Kritzolina pointed out the reason is in the purpose which states

"The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection."

And Gnangarra said that

"QI is about recognising the efforts of our community".

That is fair enough, but I think QI has grown so large and important for Wikimedia projects that it may be time to open it up to outside sources of images. Is there a way to recognise good images from all sources? If not, then perhaps QI should be forked to allow all images. I think a main client of Commons images is Wikipedia and when looking to add the best images to a Wikipedia article a metric like QI is invaluable. But Wikipedia doesn't care if the author is from Commons or not (I guess most Commons clients don't care). On the other hand I wholeheartedly agree with supporting our community. I am just not sure that excluding others from the best classification system in this project is the way to do it.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally images scraped from other sites should already be of the standard required for QI. Gnangarra 07:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, you don't see them, if you only look for Quality images. Someone might be looking for a quality image of a small town for example, to add it to the page of the Wikiarticle in their language. They see there are QIs of that town in an extra category. Unfortunately none of them shows the main square which would be ideal for giving a good impression of the town. So the user goes for one of an important sight as second choice. He doesn't notice that there is a high quality image from Flickr in the general pool. That is a bit the conundrum ... also, I did import a number of images from Flickr which might not meet the QI standard, if it was the best image available of the subject I could find under a free licence. Kritzolina (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Ideally means exactly what you said, sometimes the best available photos isnt QI standard but its all that can be found at the time. As an example this one thats over hundred years old it's the only photo I could find. We dont need a QI type process to decide or reward these photos, we have better mechanisms to recognise collections through the WMF Communication team who are always looking for ways to promote collaborations. Maybe there's potential for a historical photo upload competition to gain a more concerted effort though the down side is people hold back uploading for the window of opportunity when the competition is running, unless it a year long submission process. Gnangarra 11:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, We already have had this discussion recently: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/05#"Commons:Quality imports". Please see Commons:Quality imports. Yann (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of QI status for File:Baths of Maria de Padilla, Alcázar of Seville.jpg

As per Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Creator, image must have been created by a Wikimedian to be eligible for QI status. Where this image is by a Flickr user. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 13:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust, @Gnangarra FYI ... Plozessor (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I have remove the QI status of this image, Gnangarra 06:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but I've not nominated this file for QI. I still don't know who did it. May be checking history of QIC page will help but I don't want to spend time. Юрий Д.К 06:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The archive Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 31 2024 says that this image was nominated by User:Señor Aluminio. I haven't checked the logs, but I don't see any reasons why I should do that. It is allowed to nominate images by other Commons users, but apparently the nominator falsely assumed that Юрий Д.К was the author, not just the uploader. This is a common mistake. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was my mistake. When you do it through the application, the alleged creator automatically fills you in, when it is really the one who uploaded it.-- Alu (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

15-17 Strada Jules Michelet, Bucharest (32).jpg

File:15-17 Strada Jules Michelet, Bucharest (32).jpg was promoted QI on Feb 17 though the first comment is from Feb 18, how is that possible? Was there already a promotion and someone deleted it? (IMO the picture is clearly on QI.) @Robert Flogaus-Faust, @Gnangarra ... Plozessor (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It was nominated twice, see Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_February_17_2024. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Corrupted file as QI

File:Marquee of the Senator Theatre in Chico (detail)-L1004109.jpg

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Surely you have already informed @Frank Schulenburg: ? --Smial (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Smial. Not sure what happened (Hamsters eating my images?)… Anyway, I re-uploaded the same version and now the servers seem to be fine with it. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the problem with subsequently(!) corrupted JPGs occurred frequently years ago, at that time due to server problems. Sometimes only thumbs and the reduced image versions were affected. --Smial (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Nominations per day

Hi,

I would like to propose a change regarding the number of nominations per day. Currently, users are allowed to nominate up to 5 images, based on a decision made back in 2014 when there were many contributors. However, I believe it would be beneficial to limit the nominations to 2 per day, and not allow the same user to nominate both images. In other words, if a user nominates one image, the second image they nominate should be from a different account, to ensure a fair distribution.

This change will provide more time for thorough reviews and prevent the page from becoming overwhelmed with nominations. I welcome any suggestions or feedback you may have on this matter.

I would also like to notify some active users, @Ermell, @-Poco a poco, @Michielverbeek, @XRay, @Agnes Monkelbaan, @Tournasol7, @Rjcastillo, @D-Kuru, @Johann Jaritz, @MB-one

Regards Riad Salih (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose This question comes up every few weeks ;-) I am against reducing to 2 nominations. It's important that everyone rates at least the same number as they nominate. Unfortunately, there are some people who rate very little over a longer period of time. --XRay 💬 14:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative, I would even suggest a maximum of 2 nominations if no ratings are given, but up to 10 nominations if the same number are rated - within a few days. --XRay 💬 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support reducing the number per day to less than 5.

 Support reducing to 2.

 Oppose requirement to nominate other users' uploads.--RZuo (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this cheating? Both not signed.--XRay 💬 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The three were left by @RZuo: in one edit, hope removing the line separation to make this clearer is OK. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose reducing the number of nominations, would support increasing them (XRay's suggestion of making this contingent on rating is interesting!). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose reducing the number of nominations, and compulsory reviewing. Some people do not know how to review pictures. So no review is better than bad review. Yann (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Yann what do you suggest? Riad Salih (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

nominations are certainly too many to be reviewed properly, as shown in the section #Corrupted file as QI above, a corrupted file with a large grey part could go unnoticed and become QI. RZuo (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Would rather increase than decrease the limit, probably to 7 or 10. And, it might be difficult to implement but we should require people to review other pictures, as already noted by others. Like, you can't nominate unless you voted for XX pictures in last XX days. Plozessor (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but I think it should be implemented with certain conditions for contributors who review the images. For example, they should have a minimum number of edits or possess a certain number of quality images or featured images. This would help ensure a minimum level of credibility for the reviews. Riad Salih (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose reducing the number of nominations. I try to upload only QI pictures, if the nominations were reduced I would upload less.The proportion of damaged images will certainly always remain the same because to err is human. XRay's suggestion to make this dependent on the rating is correct, but that would have to be controlled somehow. Ermell (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The purpose is to encourage contributors upload good qaulity images, seriously you would upload less. The purpose of contributing is bigger than a QI stamp, as nice as they are. Gnangarra 02:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose the proposal and would support XRay's proposal, indeed interesting because it sounds fair. Who reviews more (and is also capable of doing so) should be empowered to nominate more. Poco a poco (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose per XRay and Ermell. Although I encourage to nominate other users' images. MB-one (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I am not enough of an expert to review other users' pictures, but in the past I nominated some very few of my own, and it would be sad to me if I was excluded from nomination when reviewing becomes a precondition for nominating. I totally appreciate the work that the reviewers do and I try to contribute to Commons in other ways where I have more expertise. Having said that, I have no strong opinion on the number of nominations per day. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that is ok. The issue is that we certain people have nominated hundreds of pictures without ever reviewing a single one, that won't work in the long run. Plozessor (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Neutral I support and oppose this with pretty much he same amount. However, I would rather go with a redesign of a the website as better approach. Right now it's simply a good amount of work to vote even with the voting helper (that sometimes does not work at all). My suggestion rather is to make voting easier and make it possible to have more than one vote per image. I would love to contribute more, but at this stage in my life I can not even keep up with the images I make (having like way over 1'000 unprocessed images )-: ). However, if voting was faster and easier it would be possible since it wouldn't take that much time. --D-Kuru (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

agreed. if it can be as simple as for example the new way of replying, by clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit. RZuo (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"Clicking a button and then typing any comments and then clicking a button to submit", isn't that what QIVote does? Plozessor (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

i arrive at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list.

i dont see any buttons.

so i click "edit source" next to a date header.

in the edit window there's a red bar "Click here to activate QIVoter helper!".

i clicked. nothing happens. no buttons.

i've tried finding out how to use those qi helper gadgets before, but never succeeded, so i just gave up, and only nominated or voted by editing the wikitext. RZuo (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo, @D-Kuru Ahh of course that is complex as hell. Go to "Preferences", "Gadgets" and enable "QIVote". Plozessor (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately (or thankfully) written text on the internet does not have any tone of voice to it. So I (do not) wonder what you meant with of course that is complex as hell. "even with the voting helper" - the helper is better than nothing but not anywhere near a decent voting tool. "that sometimes does not work at all" - It simply isn't build to do anything else than promote and decline so other edits end up breaking the template. --D-Kuru (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@D-Kuru Sorry, I didn't intent to offend you. I just was wondering 'why are they complaining that it would be so complicated, it does not seem like this to me', and when I found that RZuo did not know the QIVote gadget, I understood. I also mentioned you in my reply because you also said that it's complicated. I am aware that all these gadgets are poorly documented, so it's for sure NOT your fault if you didn't know them. Btw, QIVote works fine for me. Very rarely there are edit conflicts, which is why I usually submit my changes after a maximum of five reviews. Plozessor (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

thx. indeed with qicvote it's easy enough. RZuo (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment what is the cause for the need to reduce the number of nominations, QI is here to encourage contributions? How can that be addressed through other means. Ancedotally I encountered a couple of outreach activities where Affiliates encourage or even require people to nominate submissions to QI, so perhaps a more successful solution is in another box. Gnangarra 03:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

License plates and GDPR

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to discuss, but couldn't find any better, and couldn't find any relevant information from Commons help. My question is about car license plates on pictures. For my understanding, clearly recognizable car license plates combined with an exact timestamp and an exact location are 'personally identifiable information' per GDPR, which is why I have usually blurred them in my pictures. Now, several users tell me that this is an imaging defect (which may be true but still I won't violate the law to create better pictures). How do you (especially the users from EU) see this? Or can anyone tell me where to find relevant documentation or past discussions? Plozessor (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no need to blank out the license plates for images from Germany. Whether you are allowed to publish such photographs may depend on what your intention is, at least according to [1] and some similar pages. It is not allowed to take photographs of a car with readable license plates with the purpose of identifying a person (and their possible misbehavior) and publish it so that the photo can be accessed publicly, e.g. by taking a photo where the car is parked illegally and complaining about this. However, I am not a lawyer and I may be entirely wrong. And I don't know anything about other countries. So this is not an image defect IMO, but you should probably mark an image with blanked license plates as {{Retouched picture}}. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are worried about legal consequences because of license plates, do not take or publish such photos. If you anonymize them in a clumsy way, don't ask for QI status. Lothar Spurzem, for example, often put a lot of work into making license plates that looked "natural" but didn't actually exist. I'm not saying that everyone should do this, because it's still basically a fake, but it should be legally safe and some people accept the procedure for QIC. --Smial (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Tecina - Playa Santiago - La Gomera 01.jpg

This file, posted today, seems to have been supported 5 times so far, which implies there's a bug in the system somewhere. What's going on? @Johann Jaritz, MB-one, ArildV, and Ermell: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea, but there seems to be some kind of QICVote malfunction. User:ArildV complained that he had the intention to promote a different image and he used QICVote. I only found some possibly problematic blanks after the nominator's signature which I removed. But this might be a problem for QICbot, if any. I am not sure about this either. The only obvious similarity between the two images in sequence is that the file name of the second one (File:Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg, no votes yet, possibly the image User:ArildV wanted to promote) is a part of the first one with the multiple votes (File:Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg). I do not use QICVote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to use QICVote and change the second photo to promote. The preview was fine but when I saved it my support vote was moved to the first photo. I realize now that the same thing happened yesterday (but I just assumed then that I had forgot to save my vote. Strange since I have been using QICVote all day,--ArildV (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the second image manually now.--ArildV (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The solution is very simple. The filename "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg" is a part of "Tecina_-_Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". The QIC script matches with the first filename containing "Playa_Santiago_-_La_Gomera_01.jpg". (See Robert's remarks too.) I had the same problem some months ago. The script should be fixed. --XRay 💬 05:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding recently promoted quality images to the main page?

I've done a done a quick demo of potentially adding recent QI's (those promoted in the last day) at User:Mike Peel/Main Page, and started a discussion at Talk:Main_Page#Adding_recently_promoted_quality_images? - please have a look and leave any thoughts you have there, to keep discussions together. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

QICBot malfunction

This morning I noticed that a QI that was promoted, archived and categorized yesterday was also archived today, i.e. File:Atriplex littoralis RF.jpg. In addition, QICBot told me about the promotion of the same image on my talk page and it was added to Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted again. There are quite a lot of duplicate entries on this page and some others that got added to the galleries already are about to be moved there again. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, same for File:Palm Springs, CA, 2024 - 119.jpg -Another Believer (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like someone edited the page at 04:58, so QICBot edit conflicted when saving the page after removing the files to process. I don't think there's any consequences apart from the duplicate entries on gallery pages? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Radomianin and I removed many of these duplicates. But this took some time. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Wiki colleagues, I think it's best if we check the galleries for duplicates and remove them there. But first of all, the bot failure should be fixed. At the moment I'm on the road and can't make any edits. I will be able to resume maintenance next week. Many thanks to Robert for his active participation in the clean-up work after the QIC bot malfunction. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominating and reviewing statistics

Prompted by the above, and because I've been thinking about doing so for a while, I've written a quick script that tries to count the number of nominations and reviews that users make. Caveats: it only looks through the current candidate page, so will undercount support/decline reviews that were already archived (maybe it should also count the last 7 archives?); and for consensual votes it counts each new line as a separate review, which may not be too accurate. I've put a sample table at User:Mike Peel/sandbox - what do you think? Worth working on further? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mike Peel

I really appreciate the concept of the script. It's worth exploring further for me. We should definitely ask the contributors to share their feedback. Thank you for investing your time in creating the script. Riad Salih (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike! I also believe that it's definitely a plus. We could change the message to the top from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)". That would be a first step. Not intrusive, but we achieve more transparency. I'd also check from time to time the stats and my behaviour would also change not reviewing images of nominators who don't review. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It's now running daily, saving to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics, let's see how that goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Peel, I really like it! The only issue is the missing archives, because promoted/declined nominations are archived earlier than others. So I might have promoted 20 pictures, 15 of which are already archived, while my nominations were not promoted and are still in the queue, then it looks like I would have nominated 20 but reviewed only 5. Including the last XX archives (at least 7, probably even more) would fix that. Plozessor (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Plozessor: I've updated the code today to include the last 7 days of archives, how does that look to you? It's easy to increase the number of days of archives it looks through. But as it stands, @Alexander-93, Nirmal Dulal, Grendelkhan, Sebring12Hrs, Another Believer, Nabin K. Sapkota, MB-one, and Llez: are in debt by 20 reviews or more. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for running this; it's inspired me to at least try to review some images. grendel|khan 04:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I always have one issue with these discussions - they assume every image should be reviewed. I believe it is totally okay for some images to just not get promoted without being demoted. Quite a few of my images in the past had this fate and I got the message. They are not horrible, but they are not good enough. I very rarely demote images, but there are also days, when I look at many images and think to myself - not really bad, but not good enough in my opinion. Others seem to agree as those are often the images that get filed away as not reviewed. For me this makes sense and is just the normal way of things. I would not want to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kritzolina (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)

I hold a different opinion. Sometimes, I nominate some images and they don't get a review. So what's the point of nominating them? I prefer to see a decline rather than having the images ignored, as this will not motivate contributors to nominate more images. Riad Salih (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I know that some people see this differently - but I also know there are more people who feel the way I do. For me the point of nominating images is to see, if they will pass the mark and get the QI status. If they don't, I don't need a decline. Sometimes a review is helpful, but not all reviews are. I prefer not to say anything, if I don't have anything useful to share. Kritzolina (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: If any of my images don't get a review on the first time around, I renominate them again one more time. I find that about half get promoted on the second attempt, and the rest I view as being as declined. I think that the limitation here is getting someone to review an image, not that unreviewed images aren't QI. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Peel - I think we all know that the criteria for QI are not as hard as we like to think. Some images end up in the discussion section because of that. And some end up not reviewed, because no one feels confident to either promote or decline. I often look at pictures and think - "hmmmmmm, I'm not quite sure here, it is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects... and my screen is too small to show me all the details I would need to be sure this or that area is as it should be" and then I don't review. I think some of those images that did get promoted for you in the second round might be such images. With additional time, somone comes along who will have the right equipment and feel confident to promote - that is clearly more likely than someone coming along and rejecting. People who feel confident enough to make rejects are the kind of people who feel more confident to review in general. I will not re-nominate images from the "grey-range", as I would call it. They are not clear QIs, so be it. You think differently about this, which is also fine. Still, I don't think the real limitation is getting people to look at the images and form an opinion. But what would we win, if more people reviewed with statements like "This is not bad, but it is also not up to the mark of some other images of similar subjects" or "I am not really sure about this one"?

For me the real problem is that we have different wants or needs here by different users. The group of users who want every image reviewed is a lot more vocal then the group of users who is fine with images going unreviewed. Who actually prefer an unreviewed image to a rejection. That doesn't mean this second group is necesseraily smaller or less important. Kritzolina (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to give more visibility to Mike's stats, as mentioned above. Does anybody have a problem if we change the message in the orange banner from "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day." to something like "Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here how you are doing)"? Poco a poco (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO OK --XRay 💬 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ditto --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry for this, but the link above is wrong and goes to Mike Peel's sandbox instead to Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics. And I do not really understand what Mike Peel's script does. For example, the version from yesterday [2] counted just two reviews for me. The version of the candidate list when the script ran, [3], shows five votes and one comment from me. There would be another vote archived on April 6. And I have severe doubts that there were 15 images nominated by me that were on the candidate list or in the latest 7 archives. My personal count is 10 nominations. Still more than my votes or comments for other images, but my monitor is substandard and that is not going to change any time soon. Anyway, the script should be corrected before it is made more public. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry again, I corrected a sentence that was wrong because it was about images nominated by me instead of total images, of course. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's because of the images you reviewed by 'Petr Chodura', who didn't sign their nominations with a link to their user page, causing the script to miscount. The code for the script is at [4] if you want to see what it does in detail. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, even though I am not a Python script programmer. This is an unusual case. So I agree to the proposal by Poco a poco if the link is corrected. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Done Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Should Commons talk:Quality images redirect here?

I came across Commons talk:Quality images today - it gets way less traffic than this page, and has unanswered questions dating back over a year. Should it just be redirected here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support Yes, sure! Yann (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it rather be the other way around? --MB-one (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but this seems to be the more active venue... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Redirected today. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

QI Wiki Loves Earth 2024

Dear all,

I would like to draw your attention to the promotion of many participants in this year's Wiki Loves Earth in Tunisia. This year, we have encouraged participants to submit their photos to the Quality Images process to help them learn and improve the quality of their contributions.

Your support in promoting these photos is crucial. Although the process is complex, your assistance will greatly benefit these new participants, helping them learn and become active members of the Wikimedia Commons community.

Thank you for your help and dedication.

TOUMOU (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Just concerned that it doesnt become a back patting exercise and cause many unsuitable images to rated as QI, Tunisia isnt the first country to do this and its becomes problematic both in volume of nominations and the outcomes Gnangarra 13:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Awaiting for small loops of feedback would be great instead of nominating 5 pictures a day for weeks without taking that feedback in consideration for the next nominations. --Poco a poco (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Coat of Arms - Heraldry

Graphic created as faithful reproductions of heraldry need to also meet three criteria;

1. the work cant be copyrighted, nor can the source each must be verifiable
2. the source must include any templates used, as well as a link to verifiable version of the original work, where know the original creator
3. while user can be attributed using the Author field, it can not be an {{Tl:own}} an own work

For QI to be applied to these works all of this information needs to be available before being promoted. Gnangarra 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Gnangarra

Coat of arms are different. Its not a reproduction imo. It is created from a Blazon. In heraldry and heraldic vexillology, a blazon is a formal description of a coat of arms, flag or similar emblem, from which the reader can reconstruct the appropriate image (also normally no original work, no original creator and no "verifiable version). Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation.The blazon is not copyrighted, but the interpretation is. --ArildV (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But one can not just assign whatever Blazon you want to use, each is a very specific arrangement and uniquely registered as the mark of the person/family/place. Its the specifics of the arrangement that need to be cited, along with all the source templates that have been used. Gnangarra 07:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand you argument.

Graphic created as faithful reproductions of heraldry need to also meet three criteria;

No, its not a reproduction. It is created from a Blazon, not from an original work.

"the work cant be copyrighted, nor can the source each must be verifiable"

Its no original work here, just a blazon.

"while user can be attributed using the Author field, it can not be an {{Tl:own}} an own work"

Why not? ArildV (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

do you just imagine that this will be the herald used and then combine the bits, or do you first take directions from another work that says this what has been used and recognised for the last 300 years? Gnangarra 10:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)