Commons talk:Quality images candidates

Guidelines

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

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)

Accidental deletion of hundreds of nominations

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

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)

• 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)