Commons:Kandidat për imazh cilësor

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 13% 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.
Shortcut
↓ Kalo tek kandidimi ↓
Other languages:

Këto janë kandidatë për t'u bërë fotografi cilësore. Ju lutem vini re se kjo nuk është e njëjta gjë si fotografi e përkryer. Përveç kësaj, në qoftë se ju vetëm dëshironi disa komente në fotot tuaja ju mund të merrni atë në Commons:Photography critiques.

Qëllimi

Qëllimi i imazhe me cilësi është për të inkurajuar njerëzit që janë themeli i Commons, përdoruesit individual që ofrojnë pamjet unike që të zgjeruar këtë koleksion. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Udhëzimet

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

Për nominuesit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.

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

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Cilësia e imazhit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Vlera

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section: 

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below: 

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives korrik 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives korrik 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 10 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: 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]] 16:41, 10 korrik 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).


July 10, 2024

July 09, 2024

July 08, 2024

July 07, 2024

July 06, 2024

July 05, 2024

July 04, 2024

July 03, 2024

July 02, 2024

July 01, 2024

June 30, 2024

June 29, 2024

June 27, 2024

June 25, 2024

June 24, 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:Hauptplatz_27_in_Enns_(1).jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 06:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tholpava_koothu_shadow_puppet_artist_(1).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 07:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMW_M3,_BAS_24,_Brussels_(P1170529-RR).jpg

  •  Oppose Unfortunately I disagree with your disagreeing, another yellow car in the background of a yellow car is disturbing. Might have been better to take the picture from a bit more right. --Plozessor 07:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In addition to the problems already criticized by others, the wide-angle perspective also destroys the proportions of the vehicle. Maybe I'm too old-fashioned, but for me, wide-angle lenses are a tool for rather special designs, not a means of "making everything fit into the picture". (This also applies to architecture). --Smial 11:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 07:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Menzel_jemil_sunset.jpg

  •  Comment Sorry, but why are you looking for sharpness here? no need for the background to be sharp here and the foreground (the water) is a reflection of the background and could be soft as well , and for the focal point which is the mountain ,is silhouetted and it's clear enough with no details in it ,because it's simply a pure dark element. --Marwenwafi 13:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler according to your logic, any long exposure effect done on Clouds and water surfaces should be sharp and clear ,which is never the case --Marwenwafi 04:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 08:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фасад_Большого_Кремлёвского_дворца_со_стороны_Софийской_набережной,_Москва.jpg

File:Фасад Большого Кремлёвского дворца со стороны Софийской набережной, Москва.jpg

  •  Oppose Not sharp (especially on the left side), building too dark (due bad light conditions; it was simply a bad time to take this picture from this angle), also slight blue tint. --Plozessor 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Who was suddenly deleting this file?
author or uploader request deletion
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Plozessor 08:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Центральный_выставочный_зал.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Высокогорное_пастбище_на_плато_Ассы-Тургень.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fisherman_silouhette_at_Cape_zebib_beach_during_sunset.jpg

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Molenaar,_Molenplein_Made_1.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Общий_вид_ул._Охотный_ряд_с_Театрального_проезда,_Москва.jpg

File:Общий вид ул. Охотный ряд с Театрального проезда, Москва.jpg

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фасад_ГУМа_со_стороны_Красной_площади,_Москва.jpg

File:Фасад ГУМа со стороны Красной площади, Москва.jpg

  •  Comment Unfortunately, as strong as you disagree I am certain about what I saw. Please don't get me wrong. It is a very nice and well composed image. I just spotted some technical flaws. I double checked it: When I lock at the image at 80 or 100% it looks unsharp, especially the left part of the image. There musst have been some more intense digital sharpening and de-noising involved which led to loss of texture at the façade and trees for example. --August Geyler (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 16:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Фестиваль_цветов_2024_в_ГУМе,_Красная_площадь,_Москва.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mechelen_OLV_over_de_Dijle_hoogaltaar_detail_3.png

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Djerba_harbor.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 09:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024_Toyota_ProAce_City_IMG_9398.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tribulus_terrestris_-_Dghoumes_National_Park.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acacia_-_Dghoumes_National_Park.jpg

  • Kandidimi an Acacia tree in Dghoumes National ParkI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 12:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diskutimi
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 08:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose A more precise location (or geocode) is needed here. Otherwise good. --Augustgeyler 19:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak (temporary)  Oppose. Nice view, but CA should be fixed, that would probably also improve the sharpness at the edges. Somewhat reddish tint. The vignetting could also be reduced a little (not necessarily completely) as I don't think it helps to improve the composition. --Smial 12:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:РАССВЕТ.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 16:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Li_L9,_Almaty_(P1180247).jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Μονή_Ζωοδόχου_Πηγής_στη_Στεμνίτσα_2998.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fisherman_during_Sunset_at_Cape_zebib_rocky_beach.jpg

  • Kandidimi Fisherman during Sunset at Cape zebib rocky beachI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuk u miratua
  •  Oppose Noise or compression artifacts, overall blurry and lacking detail, sorry. --Plozessor 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun_behind_the_rock_at_Cape_zebib_beach_during_sunset.jpg

  • Kandidimi Sun behind the rock at Cape zebib beach during sunsetI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuk u miratua
  •  Oppose No detail, too soft, probably from massive noise reduction made by the camera/smartphone --Plozessor 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:A_man_on_the_cliff_at_Cape_zebib_rocky_beach.jpg

  • Kandidimi A man on the cliff at Cape zebib rocky beachI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuk u miratua
  •  Oppose This wouldn't be so bad but it seems to suffer from too strong JPG compression, resulting in artifacts. --Plozessor 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024_BMW_M4_(G82)_Competition_IMG_9370.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wienerstrasse_1_in_Amstetten_(1).jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bianchi,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170795).jpg

  •  Comment That's not relevant for QI. Plus, the photograph was created with an official permission by the organizers of Cyclingworld.. --MB-one 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Augustgeyler: Yes, all visitors are made aware in the T&Cs as well as with posters at each entrance, that they are subject to photography and videography. That's commons practice at such events. So legally, we're 100% ok. --MB-one 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It seams to be legal to show these people here. The image is technically OK. I just think the bike does no separate well enough from the cluttered background. --Augustgeyler 09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support I agree with the cluttered background, but the picture is meant to show the situation at a fair. I guess it would not have been possible to take a picture of that bike at that fair without a cluttered background. It's not ideal but IMO it stands out just enough. --Plozessor 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, with permission it's fine  Support --Georgfotoart 20:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --August Geyler (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:H145M_LUH_SOF,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA44675).jpg

  •  Support Obviously it is "relevant for QI" whether the picture can be legally published at all, but this is the case here per my understanding of German law. Picture is good. --Plozessor 16:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, with permission it's fine  Support --Georgfotoart 20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  SupportGood quality. I'm not a big fan of having recognizable people in a picture here (unless they are the subject of the picture, of course), but I can't oppose it if German law allows it. (but no country prohibits blurring a little bit people's faces in pictures :-) ) --Benjism89 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Benji 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emirates,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA43985).jpg

  • People at public events in Germany may be recognizable on pictures as long as they're not the primary subject. But  Oppose until perspective is fixed. --Plozessor 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bahasa Melayu
  • Canadian English
  • Chi-Chewa
  • Cymraeg
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Nederlands
  • Türkçe
  • català
  • dansk
  • español
  • français
  • galego
  • italiano
  • latviešu
  • polski
  • português
  • shqip
  • svenska
  • čeština
  • македонски
  • русский
  • українська
  • العربية
  • فارسی
  • मैथिली
  • ไทย
  • 中文
  • 日本語

    • ✓ Done Thanks for your reviews. Have applied perspective correction. --MB-one 18:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Средние_Торговые_Ряды,_фасад,_Москва.jpg

    • @Юрий Д.К.: I am sorry as well. For me it is hard to imagine that you can not "find unsharp" anywhere. I cheked it again. Comparing this photo with similar architectural images here at this resolution easily reveals its low sharpness. The lowest sharpness inside the DoF can be seen at the outer left part of the building. --August Geyler (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Fern_Rock_Mallalli_Hassan_Jun24_A7CR_01573.jpg

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 07:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:20240628_juvenile_american_robin_south_meadows_PD202740.jpg

    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Después_de_la_inundación_02.jpg

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

    File:At_Hardwick_Hall_2024_225.jpg

    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:A_reflection_flight_of_barn_swallow.jpg

    •  Weak oppose Not sure about brightness, but it looks retouched (something seems off with the tips of both wings). Also it is not really sharp and detailed. What exactly do you mean with "reflection flight", does the picture not show the actual bird but rather its reflection in the water or something? --Plozessor 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Perhaps I was wrong with my vote. The description says: "a reflection flight of barn swallow captured in bagmati river in kathmandy valley in nepal". If that is the case, the bright underside could be natural. It must have been a very clever setup to get the bird at this angle while having very even water below and perfect light from above. @Prasan Shrestha: @Nirmal Dulal: can you shed light on the background of this shooting? --Augustgeyler 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Glori_3.jpg

    Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 21:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:L5_Sydney_Light_Rail_diagram.png

    • Are there more issues, like this? I'm not from Sydney and could easily find an error. Also it looks like Robin Thomas is linked to F3. Ferry terminus seems misplaced. Can't find any indication of Atkins road's terminus on this map. Which source has been used to create the document? How to verify the content? --Basile Morin 02:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I live close to the line, so a lot of the knowledge is somewhat local and on-the-ground. Robin Thomas may be equidistant from F3 as Parramatta Square, but the official maps on the L4 trams (no photos and not open yet – I got to go in on a community event) encourage using Parramatta Square as the ferry interchange and I'd rather reflect that as I have with all my other Sydney public transit diagrams. Atkins Road turnback is based on the environmental impact map (I have it saved offline), but you can see the turnback on OSM (I can't link the URL without breaking the template, but just enter "map=18/-33.81554/151.06620" after the # to see the turnback). --SHB2000 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or just copy https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.81553/151.06562 into your browser for Atkins Road turnback. --SHB2000 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not Wikipedia. NOR has no relevance here. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commons:Evidence-based mapping: "Although inaccurate or unsourced maps may not be easily deleted on Commons, accurate and well-sourced maps are much more usable. [...] Please use reliable sources and cite them. Otherwise, you risk wasting your time on creating maps that are much less usable than they could be, and will be replaced as better, well-sourced maps become available." And you put this file on Wikipedia. So it is (also) Wikipedia-broken -- Basile Morin 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Oppose Font emphasis with no symbol and no indication on why the text is bold sounds like unconventional. A new version of this file has now been uploaded with a different title (and a misleading summary since the major change is not the imperceptible modification of the "L4 color" but more obviously the title) and I don't think this diagram respects the norms of any official map.
    This file "L5" is currently used on a Wikipedia page L4 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parramatta_Light_Rail&diff=next&oldid=1232143401 ). Do you have a reliable source to confirm the name L5 is associated to Parramatta (like here for L4)? -- Basile Morin 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the only other light rail line under construction – the chances of it being numbered anything else is next to zero. --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Basile Morin 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COM:NOTWP. --SHB2000 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COM:Evidence-based mapping -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays are not policy. --SHB2000 00:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This essay is an excellent recommendation on Commons. Try to follow it and you'll have more chances of success. -- Basile Morin 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommendations don't need to be followed if it doesn't serve the viewer best. --SHB2000 03:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. Healthy recommendation. -- Basile Morin 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Purely from technical side, this picture seems good, I don't see the need for 'an indication why the text is bold' because it's implicit that the bold stations are somehow important. But I can't judge the correctness. --Plozessor 04:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture looks very good, yes, and that's a problem, because it doesn't come from a serious institution, and its content is unreliable / potentially erroneous. It was called "Parramatta-Olympic Park Light Rail Line Diagram" and now it is "L5 Parramatta & Olympic Park Line diagram". Maybe tomorrow it should be named differently according to the authorities and we will have a Quality Image with wrong facts and labels -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, the comments that have come from you are quite frankly, disappointing. I've been following the project closely with news on the ground (and been to project open days + public consultations) and I know what's accurate and what's not. The line doesn't have a name yet, so there are no "wrong facts and labels", so I've just followed what I've done on every other line diagram (but neither name is "incorrect"). --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And please, don't say that the comments that have come from me are "disappointing". At least one station was wrong by your own fault and I am the guy who has noticed it here. You could say "thank you" and be grateful instead of throwing unwarranted reproaches. Maybe the other maps contain mistakes too, I didn't check them, and probably nobody did. -- Basile Morin 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who frivolously accused me of adding "wrong facts and labels" and failed to address that (the Murdoch St was a genuine error, but that's about as far as it goes). And again, COM:NOTWP. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And again... COM:Evidence-based mapping. What I wrote about wrong facts and labels: "Maybe tomorrow it should be named differently". Moreover, you changed the title with a misleading summary "fix L4 color". -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...because I did? (from D8163A to CD0D4D) The title was a minor fix which had no effect whatsoever (only you seem to be fussy about it). --SHB2000 22:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • color is from https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/_large_x2/public/2024-02/Parramatta-Light-Rail-Stage-1-and-2-map.jpg.avif?itok=wYeWiA3I, number is implied. (it's certain that it won't be numbered anything else) --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability. It would be also very surprising that L4 gets almost the same color as L2 from the official institution. The name "L5" is just inexistent in 2024. The authorities don't use it, certainly for fair reasons. The line was supposed to open in 2026, and is now postponed until 2031. Maybe will never be finished. Thus the invention of this number + color is clearly original research. On Commons, a QI cannot be replaced nor deleted, once it's promoted, it has to remain unchanged. Which means likely wrong in this case -- Basile Morin 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't Wikipedia. See my comment above. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    COM:Evidence-based mapping. The file makes it appear that there is an L5 line, with misleading logos, when this line was never called L5, does not yet exist, and perhaps never will exist. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "and perhaps never will exist" – not true, construction has already started. There will be an L5 line, logo is not misleading when this is a stock-standard TfNSW logo with the color directly taken from the website. If you don't know about something, don't comment on it instead of accusing someone who does know what they're doing of promoting "wrong facts and labels". --SHB2000 22:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nord Stream 2 also started, some day. But a start does not guarantee an end. See Second stage of Parramatta light rail line will not open until 2031. Will there be a logo L5 with this color in 2031? It is pure speculation at this stage. There is no valid link today, and anything could happen within 7 years. The official sites do not even venture to give figures. So the content of this file falls into "Original research", and we should take into consideration that the goal is to use it on Wikipedia, of course. According to the authorities, there will be interchanges in at least two other stations. Those are not indicated. Which means a traveler who wants to go from point A to point B could make a long unnecessary detour while taking inspiration from this map. Perhaps more connections are missing too, if we check carefully. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    a) if it's the color used on the website, there's no reason to not assume it won't be in 2031; b) missed my point with the interchange, that only the important ones are marked; c) you are the one speculating that it won't be the case in 2031; d) you are the one who is fearmongering by claiming "point A to point B could make a long unnecessary detour while taking inspiration from this map", you are the one who is opposing based on non-existent reasoning such as "Perhaps more connections are missing too, if we check carefully.", you are the one who seems to have missed the word "important" in my other reply. There are valid reasons to oppose, but the reasons you give are not one of them. --SHB2000 03:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't focus on the participants, even if you disagree or are upset. Why does the official transportation website mention two more interchange stations if "they are not important", according to your own subjective point of view? Lambda traveler who wants to change at Tramway Avenue, for example, will figure out there is no possibility according to this plan. That's why the trip may be unnecessary extended. -- Basile Morin 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's perfectly fine for me to focus on your behavior based on your comments (and again, I'm focusing on your behavior, not you as a person). But, at the risk of repeating myself for the umptillionth time... I don't think you seem to grasp what an "interchange" means. No one is denying that you can technically do so, but interchanging at either stations would lengthen a trip when you can do so at Sandown Avenue (via a 100-meter walk, which is faster than the tram) – you have no reason to do so at Tramway Avenue or Robin Thomas, which is why marking them as interchange stations is misleading and could lengthen a trip. --SHB2000 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice deflection; completely missed the point. --SHB2000 08:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that means an end for you using fear and misinformation, I'm all for it. Goodbye, I'm sure there are plenty of more constructive users who will give much more constructive feedback than you did. --SHB2000 12:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ♿ Disabled people: Please rename the file as "unofficial", "speculative map" or "project". It is very unwise to spread on the internet such a file called "L5 Sydney Light Rail diagram" showing a disability icon with the text "All stops on the L5 are accessible" (as if the line was welcoming). Maybe "will be accessible", in a far future. If finished, the line will not operate before 2031. Very confusing for people with disabilities, who might believe that they will be able to access the entrance of a specific station. Note that they might meet this map anywhere, not only on Wikipedia, but also on Twitter, Facebook or else. Eventually people not from Sydney searching for a reliable itinerary. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment For someone outside your argument it is really hard to follow. I would like to respond technically. I think this map should be provided as vector graphic like many other maps to be scalable. Why isn't it? --Augustgeyler 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem lies with Inkscape as Inkscape SVGs contain SVG errors – it's a well-known problem that doesn't have many feasible solutions, so the best that can be done is exporting it to a high-resolution PNG file ([https://alpha.inkscape.org/vectors/www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic0f98-2.html?t=551] [https://alpha.inkscape.org/vectors/www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic13f4.html?t=21250] [https://inkscape.org/forums/beyond/inkscape-wont-open-svg-file-will-open-another-similar-one/]). I do agree it's less than ideal. --SHB2000 20:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how exactly this can be done without converting the texts into a paths (which would make it very difficult to update later if the need ever arises). --SHB2000 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Oppose The other maps I could find are doing exactly this. Text is exported as path. Fonts are given in the description and are under Creative Commons licence, so everybody can make updates. That's why I think you should try to publish a new version as SVG and nominate this instead for QI. --Augustgeyler 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Minor_masjidi_10.jpg

    Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   SHB2000 07:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

    • Mar 02 korr → Mër 10 korr
    • Mër 03 korr → Enj 11 korr
    • Enj 04 korr → Pre 12 korr
    • Pre 05 korr → Sht 13 korr
    • Sht 06 korr → Die 14 korr
    • Die 07 korr → Hën 15 korr
    • Hën 08 korr → Mar 16 korr
    • Mar 09 korr → Mër 17 korr
    • Mër 10 korr → Enj 18 korr
    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/sq&oldid=874921701"