Commons talk:Image guidelines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Image guidelines.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1

Question about perspective

Hi, not sure if this is the correct place to ask that ... but I'm new to Quality Images and unsure about the perspective/distortion requirements. The page says:

Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant.

Per my understanding, this picture would not be a QI because it is obviously not "rectilinear" and I can't see any "purpose" in the distortion - the photographer just stood in front of the church and directed his camera upward:

However, the general consensus seems to be that this picture is a QI and "there are a lot of examples of similar photographs already QI".
Am I too critical here? Main reason for my question is that I have lots of similar pictures, but I have not dared to nominate these for QI so far.
Related, while this page says that "images of architecture should usually be rectilinear", and some of my pictures were declined because they showed upward perspective, the Quality Images page even has such pictures as QI examples:

• 
• 
• 

So why are my way less tilted pictures declined due to "too tilted", but these massively tilted pictures are used as QI examples? Plozessor (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Portrait ratio

Hi, I dunno if this is the right place to ask, but is there (here on Commons or on English Wikipedia) a guideline or policy on portraits' ratio of office holders used e.g. at articles listing holders in a table with portraits, like this: List of prime ministers of New Zealand, or incumbent MPs, like this: List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election? Chears! -- Antoni12345 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Update Image page requirements for QI to include SDC requirements

Quality images missing SDC depicts currently has a six-figure number of files in it. And yet about half of all promoted images don't have any depicts (P180) statement. Maybe it's time to update the Image page requirements to include some COM:SDC requirements?

My suggestion would be to change subsection 2.2 to read: "have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate caption in one or more languages (see also Commons:Language policy), at least one appropriate depicts (P180) statement and a location of creation (P1071) statement where applicable." MB-one (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that further tightening or increasing the number of rules for QIC will lead to better overall image results on commons. Such an approach is more likely to further restrict the circle of participants and discourage new, interested photographers. --Smial (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 for Smial's answer. Plozessor (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)