Commons talk:Quality images candidates

Can a blanked out image still be QI?

I've had to blank out the Bansky artwork in File:At New York City 2024 054.jpg - which is a QI - due to the absence of FOP in the US. Can it still remain a QI despite the blanking out? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Hard to speak for everyone, but I definitely wouldn’t promote it in this version. It’s a very heavy edit, and the result is a completely different image from the one that was originally a QI. -- Jakubhal 15:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• That is true, and I wouldn't nominate it anew for QI, but I'm not sure what happens with QI status with cases like this. Probably we need some sort of review process for past QIs at some point... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

File:20240614_great_blue_heron_wethersfield_cove_PD200579.jpg

The Discussion template for the 20240614_great_blue_heron_wethersfield_cove_PD200579.jpg image shows error. I tried to repair, but failed. LexKurochkin (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Jakubhal fixed it just before I could do it. The link to the raw version broke the template. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It is the = character, It was included in the link (but was not necessary). I've seen it before. We cannot use it without <nowiki> inside QI page templates (perhaps all mediawiki templates). -- Jakubhal 15:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! LexKurochkin (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposition: a short section about voting practices

Hi, our voting instructions focus a bit too much on manually editing the page, while most people now use QICVote. Because of that, new users often struggle when they start voting - I see it happen again and again, at least once every few weeks (for example, people opening a "Discuss" section instead of voting, or adding another "Promote" under an already promoted image).

Maybe it's time to add an extra section to the instructions. Something like:

Good voting practices

1. Do not move a nomination to "Discuss" unless someone has already added a vote you disagree with. "Discuss" is only for disagreeing cases that need Consensual Review.
2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promote" right away.
3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria, use "Decline" right away.
4. Add a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination) if you think the image has issues that can be fixed.
5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Open "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

# Promoting images with unresolved issues (when the author has not fixed the problems) is considered impolite.

1. If you disagree with a comment, start a discussion instead.

   The only exception: when the author has fixed the issue and replied, but the reviewer hasn’t responded for a long time.

What do you think? -- Jakubhal 17:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This section should be added to the rules. Experienced users do just that. Problems arise for newbies who just getting started with QI reviews. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --XRay 💬 20:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• I like the idea, but

Do not move a nomination to "Discuss" unless someone has already added a vote

and

If you disagree with a comment, start a discussion instead

are contradictory. Per rules, the first statement is correct. But if someone disagrees with a comment (not a vote), he should just add a comment, not "start a discussion". Plozessor (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Plozessor: you’re right about the contradiction. I phrased it that way because some comments give misguided advice. Still, it’s safer not to promote when an unresolved issue might be valid. Here’s a clearer version:

• If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Open "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

If that works for others, I’ll update the draft accordingly. -- Jakubhal 05:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be very happy with this. Thank you for thinking of this solution and doing the work! Kritzolina (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support I agree with the proposal and with Jakubhal's addition. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

👍 Plozessor (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• Draft updated -- Jakubhal 12:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Good voting practices (current draft)

1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

@AFBorchert, Alexander-93, Benjism89, Boston9, Brihaspati, Charlesjsharp, Cvmontuy, Earth605, E bailey, Ermell, Famberhorst, Feedmepaperr, FlocciNivis, F. Riedelio, Gower, GRDN711, JackyM59, LexKurochkin, Llez, Lvova, Majbri wael, MB-one, Michielverbeek, Никонико962, Peulle, Pdanese, Poco a poco, Polinova, Rjcastillo, RIDH-1, Robert Flogaus-Faust, Romainbehar, Sebring12Hrs, Skander zarrad, Suyash.dwivedi, Syntaxys, Tagooty, Tisha Mukherjee, Tuxyso, Umarxon III, and Uoaei1: I am sorry for the mass mention - I’m tagging everyone who edited the page in the past few days and hasn't commented yet. I just don't want to miss anyone. If there are no objections by the end of the week, I'll add this section to the page below "How to review.". If any phrasing seems unclear or could be improved, please share a constructive suggestion. -- Jakubhal 14:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Юрий Д.К., Екатерина Борисова, Красный, 星外之神, Igor123121, Giles Laurent, Velvet, TheBritinator, ArildV, Agnes Monkelbaan, and TTTNIS: -- Jakubhal 14:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  This is an important improvement. However, I recommend replacement of the first two sentences by the following text:
  

  Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  

  Thanks a lot! --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  In addition, the term in #2 should be "Promotion" instead of "Promote". I also suggest replacement of "Open" by "Change to" in the very last sentence of the draft (i.e. in #6). --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Ok,  Done -- Jakubhal 17:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Topics I recently raised above are not really aimed at voting behaviors, although I do agree with the intent of the voting practice improvements. My concerns are from the view point of a newcomer. As a newcomer, I was looking to understand the feedback that I was receiving from voters. I did not understand the language and words being used to provide feedback. Much of the feedback is very terse and inconsistent and doesn’t point me to additional information. I have tried to keep that in mind when I vote so that terms like ‘PC’ have a link to the wikipedia article about perspective control. I would encourage this group to think about how to be more welcoming to newcomers -and- improve voting behavior and feedback so that the process becomes more easily understood and intuitive. To be frank, it’s intimidating for a newcomer and there’s no mention of “how to withdraw” and “don’t delete entries”, etc. I wouldn suggest to continue these improvements to voting practices -and- I would suggest improvements to the submitting and nominating practices. I would try to think back to when you first started submitting images to commons the learning required to udnersetand the rules here. E bailey (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@E bailey: Thank you for your comment. I agree - this is one of many things that need improvement, including the more challenging ones (like encouraging some users to explain issues clearly instead of using cryptic abbreviations). However, I'd prefer to address these problems step by step, rather than trying to fix everything at once in a single edit - that would only drown us in endless discussions. I remember the situation with withdraw and will be happy to take care of that next. -- Jakubhal 17:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this initiative. I would suggest a change:

current: If you think the image does not meet QI criteria, use "Decline" right away.

proposal: If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away. If you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment instead.

In the last weeks a bunch of my images haven been declined right away. I improved them and after CR discussion most of them were promoted. This overloads the CR section and frustrates authors. Poco a poco (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done But I prefer to keep it split into two points. I think it's easier to follow this way, and I think it's worth emphasizing the "Nomination" part explicitly.

•  Support Jakubhal, thanks a lot for your very useful suggestions. I hope that these additions to the rules will be useful for newcomers and, perhaps, will give experienced participants some new ideas on how to make sure that there are as few misunderstandings and unnecessary quarrels in the project as possible. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I support the current draft, it gives a bit of insight for newcommers serving as a reference point for long-time contributors as well. Красный ^{wanna talk?} 13:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Support current draft. —Brihaspati (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Current draft. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Done I’ve added the section in its final form. Many thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion and suggested improvements. -- Jakubhal 20:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

We should be nominate more images that aren't own work

Instead of taking more images to then nominate them, we should try to find images and nominate them to increase the percentage of Quality images. Nominate existing images, please. Earth605 (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Earth605, but I think none of us 'takes images to nominate them'. QI is also for improving your own skills. Why should I search for good pictures from others and nominate these instead of nominating my own? Plozessor (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, not only nominate other images. Also search for more to make others Quality to augment the percentage of quality images as I said earlier. Earth605 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The maximum number of nominations per day often means that many people can only nominate their own photos. However, I use periods when I don't have any photos of my own to nominate other people's pictures (for example, from photo competitions such as WLM). Unfortunately, experience shows that it is difficult to find suitable photos. --XRay 💬 06:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That is very true and unfortunate. Earth605 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605 I have uploaded 1830 pictures alone during this year's WLM and WLE. With nominations limited to 5 per day, I can't even nominate all of my own pictures. If you want more images promoted QI then get more users to participate. For "the percentage of quality images" it doesn't matter whether we nominate our own or someone else's pictures. Plozessor (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It is a mathematics problem. If you upload an image and nominate it to QI, the percentage doesn't go up. Earth605 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605: We don't care about the percentage, we care about the quality. Yann (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Do we want that Commons having better images? Earth605 (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be going in circles. I think it is always a good idea to be on the lookout for iamges that are good quality and to nominate them. Especially if these are from users who are not regulars here. It not only (hopefully) advances this image to QI status, but it might encourage the Wikimedian who took that picture to come to this site and nominate own images in the future. I do this too seldom. So thanks for the reminder. But I don't see this as soemthing everyone should do and I especially don't see this as something that most users would want to do instead of taking their own images. Let everyone do what they enjoy. We are all volunteers. Let's have some fun! Kritzolina (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In the past, I occasionally suggested photos taken by other participants in the ‘Festival Summer’ project as candidates, but I gave up because most of them were rejected outright as ‘too noisy’. At some point, you just get very, very tired of explaining the circumstances and the necessity of high ISO to people who pixel-peep image noise even in ISO 100 photos. Smial (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Quality is crucial. But that's difficult, because many (I don't know exactly how many) don't even pay attention to the simplest design rules. However, it would also be unfavorable to establish a set of rules here. That would also be an unnecessary hurdle. At QIC, there are many photographers whose rejected photos still stand out positively from the crowd. And I often have a hunch when nominating which of my photos will be controversial. This also shows different priorities and how much one has engaged with photography. Personally, I honestly spend a lot of time on photography, but I also have areas of focus and am always learning. On the other hand, I teach photography courses and use photos from Commons for this purpose. I enjoy passing on my knowledge, but I also expect a certain willingness to learn. --XRay 💬 16:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605 What's your point? Do you want us to stop uploading images? Should I stop taking and uploading missing images for monuments and nature reserves? I'm not uploading images just to nominate them for QI, and I'm quite sure that others don't do that, too. Plozessor (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And "Do we want that Commons having better images?" - yes, exactly that is why we are taking and uploading good images. Nominating existing images for QI does not contribute to 'Commons having better images'. Pictures do not get better just because they are nominated for (or promoted as) QI. Plozessor (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Woah! I didn't say that. I said we need to recognize quality content that was not taken by you, me and others. Earth605 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605: QI is not the place for that. For content not created by Commons contributors, we have Commons:Featured picture candidates and Commons:Featured media candidates. Yann (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

QI is one of the places to do that. Earth605 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605 Most of the images you recently nominated are far from QI. Plozessor (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Earth605: Per Plozessor. Sorry, but before telling others what to do, look at the quality of the images you nominate, they are indeed very far from what is recommended for QIC. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean "Per"? !vote? Earth605 (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with him. Sorry my english is not very good. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I was nominating others for a bit (e.g., WLM Brasil winners), but the problem was that people would request reasonable fixes to them (the usual CA, PC, etc.), but the uploader wasn't active or willing to make the changes. If they were already perfect, no problem, but if not, limbo or declines. Probably the best approach is to make sure the uploader is active and willing to make changes, or get the original camera file from them to make changes to (which is better than trying to make changes to the uploaded version). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I quite often nominate photos of other authors, but not in order to increase the percentage of Quality images. I have other reasons. For example, I know people (not necessarily personally) who take good pictures, but they are not involved in QI project, so I sometimes watch their downloads and nominate their pictures. In addition, I am often a member of the jury of various photocontests like WLM and WLE and, reviewing uploaded images, I nominate those that I consider good. I am also pleased to find someone's good pictures of my hometown and its surroundings and nominate them for the QI status. That's about it. But, of course, it's much more interesting for me to nominate my own photos, simply because, as others have already said, it's a good way to develop my knowledge and skills in photography. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

My comments in QI candidates reviews

After russia's recent attacks on Ukraine's power grid, i'm experiencing 15-18 hours without power every day. I'm partially solving this problem by using my laptop and UPS. However, I may not respond for a long time. Therefore, if the issue i mentioned in my comment to the candidate has been resolved, anyone can complete review and change result without waiting for my response.
Thanks, George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Will do, all the best to you. Plozessor (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Bot failure

@Mike Peel and whoever else has some expertise about the actions of the bot: The bot malfunctioned tonight and did not remove any images from the candidate list. It also failed to move images to CR, but images got promoted and archived. I'll deal with the mess tomorrow, but please check what caused this failure and whether it might happen again. Thanks --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the reason is here (quote):

We just had the same discussion [[Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Informationstafel_Extratour_Michelsberg_am_Rastplatz_bei_der_Haltestelle_Klinik_Michelsberg_(Münnerstadt).jpg_(1).jpg|here]]. The panel is permanently installed in a public location and thus covered by FoP. --[[User:Plozessor|Plozessor]] 11:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Link to another candidate within a candidate's discussion. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, should we remove that link? August (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking through the logs, I think it was an edit conflict, probably with @Plozessor: at 05:11 UTC. It should be cleaned up by the bot automatically tomorrow (except for Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted, sorry), or I can re-run the bot earlier than that if that would be useful. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

An early run-through would indeed be helpful, especially in case the bot shows the same error again. August (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, there's a change I want to make to the bot, will see if I can implement that and then run things through again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I was the cause. Maybe we should add some documentation what should be avoided in comments? Plozessor (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, the bot should really handle the fall-over better. Basically it's best if people avoid editing at ~5.10am UTC +- a few minutes, see [1]. I've made the change to the bot, and it's running again now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

All done, it looks like the bot finished running through OK that time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Mike Peel after the recent changes bot constantly takes some images into two neighbouring dates like this one or this one. Красный ^{wanna talk?} 08:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This one is exclusively your fault, not the bot's. You nominated the image twice and it got promoted twice. Therefore, it was archived twice and it is probably twice in the respective galleries. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk)

Blurred faces & blanked license plates

There was a discussion about this image, and this is not the first case, when this problem is discussed in QI project. Augustgeyler commented that he's "not aware of any rule stating that obscuring faces or number plates a) violates Commons policy or b) goes against the criteria for QI". I also did not find such points in our rules. Moreover, there is a point in QIP guidelines regarding Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and it's quite obvious that license plates are blanked and faces are blurred for privacy purposes. But I remember a number of cases when this was the reason that the photo was declined and did not receive the QI status (here's the example I remember well). So I think there is a reason to discuss this case. The rules of QI project do not describe many cases that we encounter in practice, so it would be good to have some kind of consensus at least about this one. @Spurzem, Lmbuga, Tagooty, Augustgeyler, Sebring12Hrs, Plozessor, XRay, Jakubhal, Robert Flogaus-Faust, and Красный: and everyone who wants to talk about it. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

To me the two are different from QI perspective.

A license plate is usually a small incidental element in an image. The eye is drawn to the vehicle, not to the license plate. If the blanking is done well, it does not in any way detract from the quality. New vehicles have blank license plates until they are registered. The only grounds for opposing a QIC would be sloppy blanking.

A person's face is often an important element in an image, it catches the viewer's attention. People do not have blurred faces in reality. So, blurring the face may significantly change the aesthetic appeal of an image. In such cases, reviewers may oppose the QIC. The onus is on the photographer to get permission from the subject.

Given the variety of images with people, I don't think that this can be put into QI guidelines. Consensus will emerge in each case based on the subjective votes of reviewers. Tagooty (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's quite simple: I don't photograph people who are part of the subject in the first place. People as accessories cannot always be avoided, but they are interchangeable and not part of the subject. They can be seen, but not in the foreground and not in private spaces. I distort license plates if they are clearly visible. I also alter license plates when photographing special cars, which I do with permission. I do the same with other identifying features such as stickers. Vehicles presented at public events remain as they are. I vote at QIC accordingly. --XRay 💬 07:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As for individuals at QIC: if a person is prominently visible, consent must be obtained. In my opinion, children are particularly vulnerable and therefore not suitable for Commons. --XRay 💬 07:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I was also involved in such discussions in the past, and some of my pictures were declined because I had blurred faces or license plates. My personal opinion is that blurred faces or license plates should be accepted if the blurring does not disturb the overall impression. If the blurring is so poorly done that it instantly draws the viewer's attention and distracts from the actual picture, then of course it is not acceptable.

Related, like XRay I avoid random people on my photos. I understand that people cannot be avoided on pictures of crowded tourist attractions. But we're getting many QI nominations of non-crowded locations such as hiking trails or quiet streets with people visible, and much likely 30 seconds later it would have been possible to take a picture without people. Many of these pictures are even promoted. -- Plozessor (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

About the mentioned image, I agree with Plozessor. The edit was too intrusive for the photo itself. It's good to be mindful about protecting the privacy of random people, but not every photo needs to be a QI, and there's no reason for us to be evaluating images whose subjects are people but with their faces cut out. I'd also like to point out that legal regulations differ between countries. In Poland, a notable court ruling a few years ago held that a car license plate is not personal data (although some later challenged it). -- Jakubhal 09:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Like others here, I believe that, when the car or person is not the subject of a picture, first thing is to try to avoid having it in the picture. It's not always possible, but I often wait for a few minutes in busy places so that there is no one in my picture, or only people far away and/or not facing me.

When this not enough, I blur faces and license plates. After some criticism here about these blurrings, I tend to apply minimal blur on faces, just enough so that the person is not recognizable, so that it almost unnoticeable. But a "minimal" blur on license plates is not enough, as the purpose of this processing is to make unreadable something that is meant to be very easy to read.

For me, blurring faces and license plates is both a legal requirement in some countries (including to some extent my home country France) and a moral requirement : I believe sharing to the world images of buildings or places does not allow us to endanger everyone's right to privacy. When I take pictures, people have no idea that I'm not just another tourist taking pictures for his family, I don't wear a t-shirt or sign saying "hi, I'm a wikimedian and I'm going to upload the pictures I'm taking today to one of the most visited websites".

Of course, blurring or blanking should be made wisely : I would not support a picture where the blurring isn't precisely made on the problematic faces and/or plates. But when it's well done and the photographer couldn't have made a better picture by just waiting for a few seconds, then I believe that blurring faces and plates is OK and should even be encouraged. --Benji 18:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Very good summary, thanks Tagooty (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with you! August (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

QICbot problem?

For some reason, the bot has an issue with images from November 16, 2025. I have a few nominations from that date that passed review four days ago, but the bot keeps skipping them when promoting and archiving. -- Jakubhal 09:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Blanks after the status are not tolerated by the bot. There must be a pipe character immediately after the status, i.e. "/Promotion|", not "/Promotion |". I fixed the issue for your three images. If the images are not promoted tomorrow, then please ask once again. Sorry for the inconvenience, but some of the syntax rules are harsher for the bot than they are for display on the candidates list gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix and explanation! ---- Jakubhal 14:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikiversary

Hi,

20 years ago, on November 22, 2005, I made my first edit to a Wikimedia project. I started uploading images to Commons a few months later, but my photographs back then were terrible. I hope I'm doing better now, and I'm proud today is also when my 2000th QI is promoted :-)

For my wikiversary, I'd like to thank you all for the amazing job you're doing, and ask you to be patient when your views don't meet those of other reviewers or nominators. Please remember we're all here for the same reason, trying to improve the quality of images in one of the greatest cultural achievements in the history of mankind !

All the best, Benji 06:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I cordially congratulate you on such a big anniversary! And I believe that we have come together in QI project to make Wikipedia, and therefore the whole world, a better place, and therefore we must judge each other very carefully, but at the same time, of course, fairly, with understanding and patience, so that the QIP does not become some kind of arena of struggle for survival, but remains enjoyable. and a useful place for all of us. Best wishes, Екатерина Борисова (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging

Pinging doesn't work on Quality images candidates page due to lack of signature (explanation by @IOIOI) so how we should notify each others here? Gower (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

In rather few urgent cases, mostly about the rules or about misidentification of plants, or when I make an edit to which they might strongly object, I contact a user on their personal talk page. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Display problem? Huge amount of votes on a singe nomination

I’ve been keeping an eye on one of my nominations “Texture of a Sprelacart panel (paternoster – New Town Hall Leipzig)” for a few days now. It caught my attention because the same person voted PRO several times in a row. I was already considering writing to the reviewer. In the meantime, however, other users have also voted in favour (@Brihaspati / @Poco a poco / @Gower (4 times!) / @Plozessor. I can’t really explain it. Could this be a display issue? Is it possible that users are not seeing the votes that others have already cast? It collected already 7 votes … August (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering the same :) But I have to say that I didn't surely review that image, so the votes are coming from somewhere else --Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

you mean, someone else was voting using your signature? August (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

No, no, I see the vote in the diff but I guess the tool placed it in the wrong place. Noclue what is so especial about this nom. Poco a poco (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I remember a problem with the voting tool and similar filenames. --XRay 💬 20:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

May be these filenames: File:Sprelacartoberfläche_im_Paternoster_im_Neuen_Rathaus_Leipzig.jpg and File:Paternoster_im_Neuen_Rathaus_Leipzig.jpg . Vote for the second sets result at the first. --XRay 💬 20:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I strongly suspect something like this. There seems to be a bug in the gadget used by many people for voting. @Poco a poco: Your vote can be seen in the following diff: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=1119462858&oldid=1119461542. I suppose that you actually meant a different image, but that the gadget turned it into a vote for something else. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

 Thank you. I just moved the filename of the original file. As soon as this takes effect, the problem should be solved. But I am wondering how to avoid this in the future. August (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I promoted the other image but not the one with the texture. Plozessor (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Sebring12Hrs

A few days ago I nominated one of my images of the Crown Towers in New Haven to the Quality image candidate list. It was promoted but then moved to discuss by someone named Sebring12Hrs. He gave valid points about why he didn't like the image, and I was already not in the best mood at the time, so I did and said some stupid stuff about him and a few hours later I regretted the stupid stuff that I did. Cut to now and every image except for like two that I have nominated and which I am the author of is immediately declined by him in an hour or two and he always gives the same reason, The image lacks sharpness. I do agree that my photos are not of the best quality due to them being taken on a Samsung, but when I looked at his photos that have gained quality status, some of them lack a bit of sharpness... like my photos... and some of his quality image photos were taken on a Samsung, which he criticized me for doing around 3 days ago.

How do I resolve this? Wobbanight (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

we don't criticize users personally. We review their work (photos and other content). Personal attacks may result in a permanent ban.

I suggest you contact @Sebring12Hrs: and write a few words of apology on their discussion page if you were rude, thus resolving the conflict.

Your image Crown_Towers_a has already been nominated and received three oppose votes. A renomination in this case is not permitted. This renomination should be rejected and closed as mistake.

Your manipulation of candidates during the discussion stage may be considered vandalism. Consider this a warning before a possible ban.

Try to take criticism of your work calmly and constructively, rather than picking on others' mistakes in response.

QI candidates is a great online school for photographers (perhaps even the best in the World), teaching the art of taking good photos.

Very friendly, George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I have posted an apology on his talk page and have withdrawn the nomination for the image of the Crown Towers. I'll reflect on what I've done Wobbanight (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, some of my photos taken with my Samsung Galaxy S8 can be borderline, however, when the lighting conditions are good and the subject is close enough, a photo taken with a smartphone can be of good quality. In my case, I felt that the houses I photographed were okay for QIC. As for your photos, I find them really borderline; the skyscrapers you're photographing are far away, and the composition isn't optimal, with framing that isn't always very successful. Furthermore, they are sometimes underexposed. Then again, other voters may give their opinions, which may contradict mine and even support your photos. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most importantly we all should use our time here for learning about good photography. This includes sending AND receiving critic always as something about our pictures or media and never about our persona.

Images by mobile phones are always borderline considering level of detail and over-processing by the phone. They can be QI but usualy only in good lighting and with close objects.

You both should always try to remeber, everthing here is about the subject not the author. If there is any doubt, ask for more opinions like you did allready many times. August (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wobbanight: This is a great place to learn how to take better photographs - but it's also a frustrating place as people won't hesitate to point out problems with the photographs you share here. We're all here with the best of intentions, but it can take some getting used to. Personally, I had a look through your nominations, and they are indeed lacking sharpness overall - which I think is mostly through the limitations of the camera and the chosen subjects. Do try closer objects, and experiment until you find what works with your setup. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Contributions to vote

Is a minimum number of editions required to vote in QIC?: User:Exciteddelirium (contributions). Sorry, I don't know. Lmbuga (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• QI rules: Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Evaluating_images. So this votes is not eligible and should be disabled. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a quality images removal process?

File:Monument to Mykhailo Hrushevsky, sheltered from Russian shelling. Kyiv, 2023.jpg was promoted while the illustration was visible, but it was since blurred for copyright reasons. Is there a QI removal process? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)