Commons:良質な画像の推薦

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 96% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
推薦一覧に移動

ここは「良質な画像」を選定するため候補画像を集めたページです。 「秀逸な画像」とは違う事に注意して下さい。 加えて、自身の投稿した写真について何か意見(フィードバック)がほしいならば、コモンズ:写真の批評で見ることができます。

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズの活動の基盤となっている人々、すなわちコレクションの拡大につながる独特の画像を提供している個々の利用者を応援することにあります。 「秀逸な画像」がコモンズにアップロードされた作品を最高峰を示すのに対し、「良質な画像」は良質な写真をコモンズに登録するよう、利用者に呼びかけ力づけることを目指します。 加えて良質な画像のページは、特定の画像の質を上げるよう他の利用者に例を示す場所としても使われるべきです。


ガイドライン

良質な画像への推薦はコモンズユーザー自身が作成したものに限ります。

画像を推薦する方へ

以下の説明は良質な画像への全般的なガイドラインです。より詳しい評価基準は画像のガイドラインを参照して下さい。

画像に要求されるもの
  1. 著作権の状況。良質な画像の候補作は適合するライセンスを添えてコモンズに投稿しなければなりません。ライセンスの要件全文はCommons:コピーライト・タグをご参照ください。
  2. 画像はすべてコモンズの方針と慣例に従うものとし、Commons:識別可能な人物の写真も対象です。
  3. 良質な画像には意味のあるファイル名をつけ、適切なカテゴリに分類し、ファイルページに1つ以上の言語で的確な説明を書くものとします。必須条件ではありませんが、英語による説明を添えてください。
  4. 画像に広告や宣伝が入っていないこと。著作権と著作者情報は画像のページに配置し、画像のメタデータに含めることも可能ですが、画像の内容に干渉しないようにします。

作者
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

良質な画像の審査対象になるには、作者がウィキメディアンである必要があります。その意味するところは、たとえば Flickr からインポートした画像は対象外です。(秀逸な画像にはこの制限はありません。) 二次元の美術品を再現した写真作品はウィキメディアンが作家の場合は対象です(そしてコモンズのガイドラインに従い、PD-oldでライセンスされるべきです)。 もし作者がウィキメディアンではないのに画像が選出された場合は、間違いが発見された時点で速やかに良質な画像の資格を外す必要があります。


撮影技術

さらに詳細な評価基準はイメージガイドラインを参照して下さい。

解像度

ビットマック画像 (JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF) は通常、サイズが2 メガピクセル以上ひつようです。審査者は撮影が楽な画像について、もっと大きなサイズを要求する場合があります。 理由はコモンズに登録された画像はプリントアウトしたり解像度の非常に高いモニターに投影したり、あるいは将来的に開発されるメディアで使用される可能性があります。この規則はベクター画像 (SVG) やコンピュータで合成した画像でフリーライセンスの適用対象もしくはオープンソフトウェアプログラムを利用し、なおかつ画像の説明に明記したものは対象外です。

画像品質

デジタル画像は取り込みや処理において様々な問題が生じている可能性があります。予防可能なノイズ、JPEG圧縮の際の問題、シャドウ、ハイライト部分の情報不足、色の取り込みにおける問題、これらの問題はすべて正しく処理されている必要があります。

構図と照明効果

画像内の主題の配置は画像に役立つ位置に置くべきです。前景と背景の物がじゃまになっていてはいけません。照明とピントも相対的な評価に直結します。主題はピントがシャープで、ごちゃごちゃせず露光が十分である必要があります。

価値観点

我々の目標は、コモンズを通して行われる、ウィキメディアの他のプロジェクト群において有用となる良質な画像の投稿を、奨励することにあります。

推薦方法

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list の候補画像リストの節に以下の行を追記するだけで推薦することが可能です。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|簡潔に画像の説明を記入  --~~~~ |}}

画像の説明は簡単で構いません。また、ひとつ前の候補画像との間には何もない行を一行残しておいてください。

自分以外のウィキメディアンの画像を推薦する場合、作者の利用者名を以下の例のように説明文内に示してください

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|数語の画像説明 (投票者[[User:利用者名|利用者名]]) --~~~~ |}}

ご注意:推薦の手順を簡略化するガジェットとして QInominator があります。 ファイルページの上部に「この画像を良質な画像に推薦する」というリンクが小さく表示されます。このリンクを押すと、画像は候補一覧に追加されます。この一覧が済んだらCommons:Quality images candidates/candidate listを編集します。編集ウィンドウの上部に表示される緑色の棒をクリックすると、条件を満たす候補作がすべて、編集窓に加わります。

推薦数

一度に選べる枚数はひとり当たり1日5点以内です。

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

画像評価

評価するには登録ユーザーで、なおかつ登録後10日以上経過し、編集回数50回以上であること、作者でも推薦者でもないことを満たすと資格があります。QICvoteガジェットを有効化すると、より簡単に評価することができます。

評価者は推薦者と同様に画像のガイドラインを基準に画像の評価をしてください。

評価方法

状態の更新方法

画像の評価は慎重に行って下さい。画像は等倍サイズで開き、品質基準を満たしているかどうかを確認して下さい。

  • その画像が品質を満たしていると判断したら、下記のように該当箇所を書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Promotion| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

つまりテンプレートを /Nomination から /Promotion へ切り替え、署名をし、可能ならコメントを記入するのみです。

  • 画像が基準を満たしていないと判断した場合は、下記の様に書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

言い換えると、テンプレートを/Nomination から /Decline に変更して利用者の著名を付与、落選した画像の分類を示す文を付け加えることもできます (ガイドラインから節の題名を利用)。 もし問題が多い場合は最も深刻な順に2点もしくは3点に絞り込むか、複数の問題あり と提示してください。推薦作を落選とする場合は、理由を推薦者のトークページに記入します – 規則として丁寧な文面で読んだ人を勇気づけることです。そのメッセージには決定の詳細を説明します。

注意:推薦日の古い順に審査し、可能な限り自分が推薦した点数と少なくとも同数の作品を評価してください。

評価猶予期間から決定まで

最初の票が入ってから2日(48時間)以内に反対投票がない場合、当該の画像は評価に従い候補もしくは候補外となります。反対意見がある場合は状態を Discuss に変更すると、当該の画像は 同意審査 Consensual review 節へ移動されます。

結論の出し方

上記の猶予期間2日が過ぎると、QICbotは自動的に投票結果が出たものとして処理し、候補作に推薦された画像はCommons:Quality Images/Recently promotedにキャッシュされます。カテゴリ付与が済むと自動的に適切な良質な画像ページに追加されます。

もし皆さんが、秀逸な画像の地位に匹敵する特別な画像を発見したと思われた場合は、ぜひこの機会に当該画像をCommons:Featured picture candidatesに推薦してみてはいかがでしょうか。

手動処理の方法 (非常のときのみ開始してください)

候補作になると、

  1. 当該画像を適切な良質な画像の単一または複数のページに追加します。このとき、その画像は関連するサブページへも追加し、メインページに掲出するのは常に、最新の3–4点のみとします。
  2. 画像の説明ページを編集し、最下部に{{QualityImage}}テンプレートを追加します。
  3. 画像の推薦と評価を記した行をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024に移動します。
  4. 利用者のトークページを編集し、{{File:imagename.jpg}}テンプレートを記入します。

候補から落選した場合、

  1. 画像の推薦と評価を記した文をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024に移動します。
  • 審査を待機中の画像は枠線がブルーの枠線内に推薦文を表示
  • 審査者が当選と認めた画像は枠線が緑色
  • 審査者が落選と決めた画像は枠線が赤色

評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

推薦されこのページに掲出された画像は8日以内に、当落どちらの票も集まらなかった場合、あるいは合意に至らなかった(つまり同意審査で賛成票と反対票が同数だった)場合、当該の画像は推薦なしとしてCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 30 2024にアーカイブしてこのページからは削除し、画像の説明ページのカテゴリ欄にCategory:Unassessed QI candidatesを追加します。

同意審査のプロセス

同意審査とはよく目にする呼び方で、上記の手順で合意が得られず、他の意見を求める必要がある事例に使われます。

同意審査の申請をするには

手続きは状態を/Promotion, /Decline から /Discuss に変えるだけで、審査の直後にご自分のコメントを記入してください。ボットの自動処理により、当該画像は1日以内に同意審査節へ移動されます。

同意審査へ申し送りする対象は、すでに当選・落選の審査が済んだ画像のみとします。審査者として、もしもご自分で判断がつかない場合には当該画像をこのページに置いたまま、コメントを添えます。

同意審査のルール

Commons:良質な画像の候補#ルールをご参照ください

ページの再読み込み: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 07:39, 30 5月 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


May 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 2024

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree 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. Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation. --ArildV 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_Contea_di_Tripoli.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the County of Tripoli --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the House of Porcia --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:BYD_Dolphin_(Global_version)_IMG_9517.jpg

  • Nomination BYD Dolphin (Global version) in Ulm --Alexander-93 10:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don't understand why nearly all your images are cropped so elongated and flat. Is this supposed to be a trademark? -- Spurzem 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The main object in this image is the vehicle being charged. The BYD and the charging station have IMHO enough space to the boundaries of the image. More space at the bottom/top would distract the viewer from the main objects. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 19:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Yaphank, New York --Mike Peel 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. The buildings are too distorted and the front could be a bit brighter. Please compare the edited version and discuss whether the original photo is a QI. -- Spurzem 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Степная_ящерица.jpg

  • Nomination Steppe Agama in Karakiya-karakol sanctuary. Karakiya District, Mangystau Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Ezra Sheyner --Красный 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose noise , the focus only on the head --TOUMOU 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree. Somewhat low DOF, but focus is ok, and the noise level is acceptable. --Smial 11:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment It looks more like a portrait than a nature photography. I can't decide whether it's good or bad. -- Екатерина Борисова 07:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

  • Nomination Parish church Saints Philip and James, Arriach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --IM3847 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. I'm not convinced of a good quality. The image is cropped too close at the bottom and the tower is badly distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg

  • Nomination Frontenac County Courthouse, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice composition, but not lucky with lighting --IM3847 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    Sunny weather is not a requirement, so I ask for another opinion --The Cosmonaut 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the Kingdom of Cyprus--ZuppaDiCarlo 22:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be previously assesed as QI Gnangarra 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Zuccarello --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC), faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Vado Ligure --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC), faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Garlenda --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC), faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Laigueglia --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC), faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Andora-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Andora --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC), faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This series of comments looks like vandalism. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. Robert Flogaus-Faust FYI. --Plozessor 09:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question What about me? The comment by User:Remontees is not understandable. Wikipedia membership is not required here. User:Poco a poco is an administrator on Commons who contributed lots of great images, so he is certainly a commoner. I don't know whether this vote is the result of a software bug, or whether it was accidentally misplaced or even intentional vandalism and I won't speculate about this. However, I am not entirely sure about this image because a large part of the animal looks rather blurry (on the left side), even though its head looks good. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again somebody who is assessing without being in the condition to do so? I'm a Commoner for over 15 years, uploaded about 30,000 images to the project, 1,000 of them featured, admin,... speechless Poco a poco 13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 14:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Author is the long-time Wiki member and it's quite easy to verify this fact. Your objection looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. --Plozessor 09:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO this image is good for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Please explain! Poco a poco has been a Wikimedia user since 2008.--ArildV 08:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Something off here, both the supporting and the opposing vote have the same timestamp from Remontees. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hopefully it is just some copy-paste error and and not bad faith. --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The author is a Wikimedia user and the picture is excellent. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support High Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg

  • Nomination Tower of Banesto building at Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona --MB-one 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, I know the tower is the subject, but that left crop is really distracting, cutting off the banner text like that. --Peulle 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support. I think it's good that only part of the advertising can be seen. I just wish the square and trees were a little brighter. I therefore vote with a weak pro and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)  Support I agree --ArildV 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle: Thanks for the review. I could crop a bit more of the advertising banner, to make it less distracting, if that helps. --MB-one 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Ann, Mary detail, by Maria Anton Pitscheider Menza --Moroder 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, most of the subbject is out of focus. --Benjism89 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF and motion blur --Jakubhal 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry even at 3 MP, and really blurry and noisy at full resolution. --Plozessor 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again  Neutral. nice lighting, and composition. I find the image noise quite acceptable in this case, and I accept the DOF as a design element, even if it is a bit tight, but it does look blurred to me due to camera shake. --Smial 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: & @Plozessor: There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
O.k., understood (mostly). However, I cannot understand that you cannot find the time to have a maximum of five images per day renamed and possibly the captions added to your description fields. Better file names would be very helpful both to improve the visibility of your files in search engines and (for me) to have them moved to the appropriate quality image galleries ("categorization" via Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted). Almost every file with a too broad file name must be right-clicked and opened to understand where it should be moved to. BTW, it also takes some time for me to upload files with the upload wizard because of the lengthy forms that should be filled in. Commons:File naming has been a proposed guideline since 2009, but it is still tagged as a proposed guideline. Apparently, there has not been sufficient consensus yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. This is about quality, not quantity. Inaccurate file names and rambling image descriptions are common at Scotch Mist. I thought a brief note would be enough to get him to improve this practice. I didn't think it would be that difficult to convince him. QIC is not intended to be a mass-processing operation. Hence the limit of 5 per day. Less is also possible. For QI you can expect more effort in choosing the file name and formulating the image description than any automatic processes. Or you can forego the candidacy.--Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Milseburg: Sorry, my mistake, I thought QI was primarily about the quality of the image and that while indexing information is of course important, it is secondary and therefore it should not be critical whether that information is contained in the File Name, the Caption, the Description and\or the Categories (each of which, or a combination, could potentially be used to aid in moving images to appropriate QI galleries). If the Caption contains information that you consider must also be contained in the File Name and\or Description, then clearly the Caption serves no purpose in this regard, but before I amend the Descriptions, and possibly the File Names, of already nominated images and hundreds of images I had intended to nominate for QI in the future, can you or @Robert Flogaus-Faust: please explain to me when I should enter information in the Caption and what form that information should take?? (PS I would respectfully suggest that my descriptions are not "rambling" and while it is understood that some background information to provide historical context to places visited may not have interest to many, there are some people who have apparently found this information and associated web links helpful!) --Scotch Mist 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, these formalities play a role in a quality image in addition to the technical criteria. In this case, I would suggest the title: "Sigismund's Column and Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw" and the description "Tops of Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle Tower in Warsaw", possibly linked. You should proceed in the same way for further nominations. In the short file descrirption of structured data it's already done but should also done in the summary. Your current approach does not meet QI standards. If adjusting is too time-consuming, simply nominate fewer images. In fact, I think it's less work to reduce title and description to the essentials. Remember that people interested in the images just want to be informed about the content of the images and do not want to go on a long educational journey. The place for that is somewhere else. No such a big thing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Like the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! I could accept this description. However, there should be also a rename request to something like File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden.jpg or possibly File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture.jpg, for example. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

  • Nomination Roof Top Sculpture at Łódź Palace --Scotch Mist 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The head of the statue is too unsharp. --C messier 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - is the image QI level with a more appropriate title such as "Roof Top Wrought Iron Work at Łódź Palace"? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong focus, per C Messier. --Smial 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (otherwise: disturbing background)
  •  Oppose Focus on the handrail, instead of the statue. Unappealing composition with distracting foreground and black shadows -- Basile Morin 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! Could you also have the image renamed, please? Or possibly allow me to file a rename request, e.g. to File:Łódź_2023_13_Poznański_Palace.jpg? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg: , @Moroder: Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A new version has been uploaded, however the CAs are still visible, and the colors wrong. See for example the jacket of the lady at the left making a selfie, it is partly pink and partly grey. Very odd. Due to the contrejour, it is likely that the sliders have been pushed too far in post-treatment. Unfortunately with moving subjects, you can't proceed HDR. There are also heavy distorsions on both sides, and a distracting object looking like a plastic bag at the left -- Basile Morin 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Schiller high school in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB? Very green. --ArildV 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV --Plozessor 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the review, tried to reduce the green in this picture. I hope it is better now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds on the top left do not meet QI standards. The building appears quite distorted in this representation. And I'm not sure about the file description. --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

  • Nomination Heralds at the south-east side of the town hall in Bremen --JoachimKohler-HB 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Good quality, but right side is leaning in. --Tournasol7 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7. --Smial 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

日程表(推薦から8日目)

  • 水 22 5月 → 木 30 5月
  • 木 23 5月 → 金 31 5月
  • 金 24 5月 → 土 01 6月
  • 土 25 5月 → 日 02 6月
  • 日 26 5月 → 月 03 6月
  • 月 27 5月 → 火 04 6月
  • 火 28 5月 → 水 05 6月
  • 水 29 5月 → 木 06 6月
  • 木 30 5月 → 金 07 6月