Commons talk:Quality images candidates
Add topic
Guidelines
[edit]Can we make a separate page for the guidelines and just put a link to it so the page loads a bit faster? good idea? Riad Salih (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- Most people use the faster version Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list instead of Commons:Quality images candidates. I do not believe that the small number of rules on Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list is an important issue for loading time. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Pictures going to discussion
[edit]I currently see several pictures going to discussion that have either no vote at all yet, or only a negative one that the original nominator did not like. I would suggest returning those images quickly from the discussion space back to nominations, as this is not what the discussion space is for. Kritzolina (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fully agree, I think there were some new users moving nominations to discussion with just their comment. However
- only a negative one that the original nominator did not like
- This is "what the discussion space is for", isn't it? -- Plozessor (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Errrrrmmm, re-reading the rules, I see that it is something that could be done. As nominators are not allowed to vote, I assumed they also could not move images to the consensual review. For me this seems - how to say this - to violate the process. This is in general a place for others to review images per my suggestion. It is very clear that I consider those I nominate (whether my own or those of others) good quality, otherwise I would not nominate them. As such it is also clear to me that I have to accept their votes and not contest them. The only role I still have is to improve images per suggestions given in review.
- For me the discussion space is for others to come to either an agreement or to see what the majority of those voting decides. But as I said, I see this is not written in the rules. So it might be allowed, even if to me it looks inappropriate. Kritzolina (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- When I nominate a very good image, and some newbie declines it with a meaningless justification, I surely want a method to challenge that decision. IMO the current process makes sense. Plozessor (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it makes sense to you and I did not suggest to change it. To me this just is extremely bad style. No image is above criticism - whether it be from someone new to the process or someone who has been there from the beginning and helped invent the process. If an image is that good, I trust others to catch a wrong decline. Kritzolina (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- It is not always bad style IMO. Only if someone does this frequently, filling the CR section with lots of images that are way too bad for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- If the image deserves criticism, then it won't pass through consensual review, right? On the other hand, I've seen cases of newbies unable to create QI themselves, yet still posting some random one-word reviews that deprecated other (and sometimes excellent) work. To me, THIS is a bad style. Authors should have a chance to defend their work in such cases! And even more in the case of revenge votes that occur sometimes (though luckily not recently) -- Jakubhal 05:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it makes sense to you and I did not suggest to change it. To me this just is extremely bad style. No image is above criticism - whether it be from someone new to the process or someone who has been there from the beginning and helped invent the process. If an image is that good, I trust others to catch a wrong decline. Kritzolina (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- When I nominate a very good image, and some newbie declines it with a meaningless justification, I surely want a method to challenge that decision. IMO the current process makes sense. Plozessor (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Accidental deletion of hundreds of nominations
[edit]I just undid an edit by Candy WikiAcción, accidentally deleting a lot of nominations and votes. I believe he was editing an old version of the page. There were other edits made after it that I resteored, hope I fixed it correctly.
@Candy WikiAcción: and everyone, please be careful when editing this heavily edited page. --Benji 17:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Lamento el inconveniente, no me percaté que habia borrado contenido, seré mas cuidadosa. Solo si comentar que siempre se me hace complicado encontrar la versión editable para nombrar y agregar las imágenes seleccionadas. Estaré más atenta, muchas gracias por avisar. Candy lsd (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Quality of the noms of User:Ahmet Düz
[edit]Hello, I want to bring to your attention that I had to warn Ahmet Düz because he is nominating a lot of candidates of poor quality. That would be fine for a newby he's not anymore. He's been nominating for almost one year now and his candidates have very obvious problems that he's getting feedback about again and again but he's obviously putting no effort to improve them before nomination. I find this situation not acceptable. It's unrespectful towards those who have been giving feedback and he's also overloading the system with his stuff (as he doesn't review anything). If there is no change of mind here I would vote for banning him from the site. Other opinions? Poco a poco (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco: Why ban me? I already try to do that with my photograph selection! I apologize if I made a mistake! Very greetings, Ahmet Düz (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- The user has some approved QIs. In my opinion, a ban would be unnecessarily harsh. This is not FP, where some people have a tendency to get annoyed very quickly. Anyway, I cannot see any overload at a maximum rate of 5 images per day. However, the user should really check photos more thoroughly before nomination, e.g. for very simple issues, such as duplicate nominations and too low resolution (do not downscale!), but also for image quality (e.g. issues with noise, CAs, perspective). May be nominating fewer photos per day (e.g. just a single one per day) might also be helpful as long as almost every candidate photo gets declined. Once the user understands which photos might be good enough, larger numbers could be nominated. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ahmet Düz: It's not about making mistakes, it's about attitude. You systematically nominate images with no fix of CA, perspective, over- oder underexposure, random crop and so on. Why don't you take time to read and accept the feedback before you nominate a bunch of new images? It's very frustrating for reviewers to have to repeat the same feedback again and again and see that th author just doesn't seem to care.
- Robert Flogaus-Faust: One user will not overload the system, but if we have many like him with 45 noms and no reviews then we'll have an issue. I also believe that new users who are not so familiar to the QI rules shouldn't start reviewing from scratch, but I believe that usually we can expect that after a year (not in this case, though). Poco a poco (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I understand very well now and I just advised Ahmet Düz on my personal talk page to stay away from the QI candidate list (possibly at least for some time) because of exactly the attitude issues that you are complaining about. Reviewing images is recommended, but not mandatory. By the way, I would not encourage anyone to review images who nominates so many images that are below the bar. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Poco a poco wouldn't it be helpful to make clear PDF guidelines in the long term? I believe it would prevent misunderstandings and make the process more easy to understand for everyone. Riad Salih (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean. We have already a good guide here: Commons:Image guidelines. What I complain about is lack of civism and respect. I find it unrespectful towards the time reviewers invest here not to take that feedback into account and after one year keep nominating bad quality stuff. Many of the images could become QI but as all other people nominating images here do, they need to be processed first and also need a final review prior to nomination.
- Clearly nobody is perfect. There is nobody here achieving 100% pass rate, and myself I've nominated a bunch pictures that were declined right away rightfully but this is a different animal. Poco a poco (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am absolutely shocked how a good faith contributor is treated here. Suggesting a ban for someone who tries his best ist definitely not what I would consider collaborative or collegial. Has anyone except Robert tried communicating with Ahmet Düz directly before posting here? Kritzolina (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- To use meaningful captions I indeed requested him two times already ([1], [2]), but this has been ignored. --A.Savin 18:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- My photos don't have to please everyone, or always. Guys, what we're doing is a complete waste of time! Even I have better or more important things to do than argue or discuss things with each other!
- And @A.Savin:
- I'm trying to add more meaningful captions or explanations to the images. However, if I change that, I'm happy to do so in the future! Very greetings, Ahmet Düz (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Addendum: [3] Very greetings, Ahmet Düz (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- IMO this is something that should be discussed on a personal level or on Ahmed's talk page but not here. And I'm clearly against a ban for such a case. --Plozessor (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- To use meaningful captions I indeed requested him two times already ([1], [2]), but this has been ignored. --A.Savin 18:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has recently declined most of Ahmet's images, I want to say that I also started with a positive approach and assumed good faith. I tried to write reviews meant to help improve future nominations. Unfortunately, all feedback was ignored. Every day, another batch of images appeared with the exact same issues - again and again, for weeks now. I do not enjoy writing negative reviews, but I do it because I believe that if the QI label is to have any real value, there need to be some standards. Many people are reluctant to write critical reviews and only leave positive feedback. Then eventually, after a week or so, someone promotes an image that everyone else has passed over. This, in turn, encourages contributors who do not want to work on image quality to keep nominating weak images day after day, hoping that eventually one will slip through. -- Jakubhal 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- You are totally right, Jakubhal. Out of 425 images taht Ahmed nominated, only 30 (showed in his "Hall of Fame") got the QI seal (the rate lower than 10%!). Looking into those 30 I wouldn't have promoted most of them. Poco a poco (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing this discussion I must say that I am shocked. QIC is for discussing images, not for discussing people. People are not things, and we affront their dignity if we discuss them like things. Discussing about other users is OK if and only if they vandalize Commons, cheat or insult other users heavily; but in any other case we should talk to users, not about them. And yes, this still applies if you have talked three times to the user before. The question is still the same: Has the user vandalized Commons? Has the user cheated? Has the user insulted other people heavily? If not, there is still no reason to discuss the user, just keep on talking with them. And even if somebody would always make bad nominations, that’s not a reason to expel that person; if QIC cannot stand some bad images, well, then it is broken. If we want to raise the quality on QIC, well, then we should improve the quality of our own nominations. I considered to return to QIC, but seeing this discussion puts me off. – Aristeas (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please, let me answer here instead of following the thread. Sorry, I missed your comment, Aristeas. I usually agree with you in almost everything, your attitude, your way to deal with issues, your criticism and all apart from your great contributions. Saying that talking about people is a taboo is IMHO short-sighted. Everybody can make failures, we are humans. I will never critize anybody for that, but if the mindset of a participant is the wrong any and this persons doesn't care in spite of reams of feedback then I feel that we have to taggle the problem at the root. And I think that this frame, among us, is the best one to do it without going to the admin's board. I've also offered Ahmet my help to sort out his candidates before he noms them but he didn't took it and looking at the last noms I still don't feel that we're moving forward. And yes, I also believe that the process works and can resists a situation this, but probable not if we have a bunch of users with the wrong attitude. I don't see why we need to keep this stress on the QIC-process without doing anything after one year. Is this the wrong site for somebody who doesn't care about the feedback he has got? if he didn't even try to improve any images following the criticism he got? Maybe I'm the alien here but to me this is just wrong. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Well, because it is apparently encouraged for some users to place nominations like "Photographed to the May 10th, 2025 in the Basel (Switzerland)" (sic!), I think QIC is shit. Nice that we both have the same opinion that QIC is shit and aren't planning to return. --A.Savin 19:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note that this is the nomination description (and yes, it doesn't make sense), but the actual image descriptions are usually correct (and if not, are critisized in the process). IMO the QIC process is not optimal but still quite good, and the anomalous actions of a few individuals are compensated by the community. --Plozessor (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Agree with Plozessor. Meaningless nomination descriptions are annoying, but they are not a new phenomenon and far less important than meaningless file descriptions. The nomination description will rot away in the QIC archive, the file descriptions will stay. But if meaningless nomination descriptions are so terrible, well, then please add a new condition to the QIC rules, namely that each candidate needs a meaningful description and that every candidate without a meaningful description can be rejected immediately. This allows to get rid of inadequately described candidates in, well, about 2 seconds per candidate. This should be fast enough even for the most impatient fellows. – Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note that this is the nomination description (and yes, it doesn't make sense), but the actual image descriptions are usually correct (and if not, are critisized in the process). IMO the QIC process is not optimal but still quite good, and the anomalous actions of a few individuals are compensated by the community. --Plozessor (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I would just like to kindly highlight once more that we are talking about a situation where a user ignored review feedback for weeks - feedback from different people who were genuinely trying to help, but also many times had to decline his photos with constructive comments. Day after day, we were receiving another batch of very weak images with the same flaws for review. It is easy to take an idealistic approach and insist that everyone deserves respect - something I absolutely agree with - but it feels a bit different if you have actually been the one doing these reviews. Was he respecting the time others spent on giving feedback to his work?
- I also want to add, since some very strong words have been used here, that QIC would not be "shit" if more people participated in reviews - especially those who really know how to take good photos but perhaps don’t nominate their own work. In my opinion, the real problem is that too many contributors are hesitant to write negative reviews, even though they clearly have opinions - this is obvious when some photos are consistently avoided by everyone, until eventually some newbie or just someone with lower standards comes along and approves them. -- Jakubhal 19:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the QIC process has been misunderstood for quite some time. I have commented several times that these discussions about image improvements in the candidate list are counterproductive, because the long duration makes the list longer and longer and longer. And now someone ignores your suggestions for improvement and keeps posting new images with similar flaws. Should he be banned for this because it's annoying? No. If the quality is not good enough: Decline. Done. Smial (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Extension of the evaluation period for multiple positive evaluations
[edit]According to the guidelines a promoted image becomes a quality image if there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review. QICbot automatically handles the images 2 days after a decision has been made. However, if an image that has already received a promotion receives another promotion, QIBot seems to base the calculation of the time limit on the last rating instead of the first See File:NPZ-Steuerwagen Bt 29-35.jpg which was promoted on 17 June 2025, 03:12 (UTC) and again on 18 June 2025, 15:37 (UTC). This image should have become a quality image on 19 June 2025, 03:13 (UTC) but at the moment it is still on the list of nomiantions. Even though it is great to receive several promotions for an image, this should not have a negative impact on the evaluation process. Would it be possible to teach QIBot to handle multiple promotions according to the guidelines? Chme82 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather advise against this kind of code changes that are not really essential and that might introduce additional bugs. You might contact Lukas Raich instead (who might be notified about me mentioning him anyway) and ask this user not to vote for images in the general section if someone did that before. Duplicate votes may be due to very similar lengthy file names and a bug in QIVoter helper, but mostly due to people who do not understand yet that a single vote is generally sufficient on the QIC list. Anyway, your photo might be promoted about two days later than necessary, but I cannot see any major harm in that. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)