Commons talk:Quality images candidates

Multiple similar nominations

The QIC guidelines do not ask nominators to choose their best images like I think they might have done in the past. We have quite a number of users nominating very similar shots. Should we do anything? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Í do not think so. However, I personally think that it would be way more interesting if everyone chose their best images both for their uploads to Commons and for QI nomination because viewing lots of similar images over and over again might become somewhat boring. In addition, this might be a waste of storage space and I don't understand why so many similar images are required. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Don’t ask the community to do your editing. Submit your best work. Focus on quality over quantity. E bailey (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem - let people nominate what they want, and reviewers review what they want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Similar photos can have various reasons, such as being part of a photo series. Different perspectives can also serve different purposes. I don’t see this as a major problem and consider additional rules to be unhelpful, if not counterproductive, especially in this case. Who is supposed to decide what constitutes a significant enough difference? If the goal is truly to select the best photo from a series, then it should be nominated on VI. -- XRay 💬 07:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

+10000 per Mike Peel ! Sebring12Hrs (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 - I don't see an issue with the current situation. Plozessor (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 Mike Peel -- Jakubhal 08:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

How to avoid QICbot failures

There have been three such failures in less than a month, and I think it's very inconvenient, despite the fact that Robert always corrects it promptly. He explained to me here that the usual reason for this kind of bot failure is an edit conflict. If somebody edits the candidates list while the bot is attempting to remove the images from the candidates list, the bot will just fail to remove them. So I have a suggestion. Maybe we should write an ad somewhere in a prominent place at the top of the QI candidates page? "Please try not to nominate or review images between 05:00 and 05:30 UTC, because at that time the page is updated by the QICbot" or something like that. I am not sure too whether it is sufficient to avoid these edit conflicts, but maybe this way there will be fewer failures. What do you think? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That might help - you could be more specific with timing, since the edits are normally at 5:08-5:13 UTC, so you could say 05:00-05:15 UTC. Or, I've been wondering about changing the bot so the edit conflict stops it completely, but I haven't figured out if I could get it to auto-restart (should be possible somehow...), or if I'd need to manually run it each time that happens. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that stopping the bot entirely might make things worse. As you know, I can clean up the gallery of recently promoted images and the archives quite easily after an edit conflict. Therefore, I support the suggestion by Екатерина Борисова, but with a more specific time interval, i.e. 05:00-05:15 UTC. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Automatic Image Quality Assessment

Hello, are there any effort to try and automate the discovery of high quality images in Commons through AI "Image Quality Assessment" ? I tried it to sort events photographs and it works like a charm ! WebSemantique (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s certainly an interesting approach. I tried out a tool like this once and was pleasantly surprised. The inclusion of categories, descriptions, and SDC can also be helpful. However, I would use a different seal/logo for images identified this way, since the QI here is also meant to help users take better photos. -- XRay 💬 18:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• taking the community out of the loop would damage the original purpose, the value the process gives to Commons, and the current benefits of QI. People are the key element to both assessing and producing Quality Images, automating the decision process will kill the artistic human elements its QI not AI. Gnangarra 04:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  While AI can, to a degree, distinct sharp photos from blurry ones, IMO it cannot judge the actual quality and value of a picture. At least not today. It is good if you have hundreds of similar photos, say from the same event, and want to quickly sort out the failed ones. But not to evaluate quality of random images without context. Plozessor (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  What I think AI could do is create a pool of images that humans could check and judge if those are indeed good candidates. One of the shortcomings of the current process is that we see almost exclusively self nominations. Such a process could widen the diversity of QIs Kritzolina (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Admittedly, I’ve often tried to nominate photos taken by others. It’s very (!) time-consuming to find suitable photos. Even in photo contests like Wiki Loves Monuments, there were relatively few candidates among the top 100. As a result, I rarely make the effort. A shortlist would be helpful. -- XRay 💬 06:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Am I the only user with Javascript issues on the QIC page?

For 3 of 4 days now, the QInominate gadget doesn't work anymore for me. I can nominate images, then I can edit the QIC page and the green bar "Click here to insert your stored nomination!" does appear, and when I click it, nothing is inserted (but the gadget empties its list and the nominations are gone). I would think that it's an issue with the gadget, but strangely, signatures with "~~~~" are also not working, but only on the QIC page. When I sign with "--~~~~" on any other Commons page, it turns correctly into my username link, but when I do it on the QIC page, it remains "--~~~~". I would think it's a brower issue, but it happens with multiple browsers. I would also think that maybe Javascript does not work at all on the QIC page, but the QIVote tool is working flawlessly.

Is there a general issue, or am I the only user affected? Plozessor (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no issues at all and looking at the number of nominations from other users, I guess ist is not a general issue. Kritzolina (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

QInominate works fine for me too --Benji 08:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Something like this may be difficult to track because it may depend on your web browser and its add-ons, as well as on your browser settings. The gadget is working just fine on my computer. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you happen to use syntax highlighting in the editor? Per m:Tech/News/2026/17, the syntax highlighting had a major version upgrade on Tuesday, April 21. Maybe the QIC gadget cannot handle the new version. If this is the case, turning off syntax highlighting should make it work it until the gadget is fixed. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tacsipacsi Ha! Yes, thx for the hint! It was the syntax highlighting. That explains why it happened across browsers and computers. Plozessor (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm experiencing the same problem. --Milseburg (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@Milseburg Disabling syntax highlighting in my Commons user settings fixed it for me. Plozessor (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this thread. Disabling syntax highlighting is a solution. Milseburg (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)