Commons talk:Quality images candidates

In your opinion, what is the ideal way to deal with image editing of quality images or derived works (e.g. crops)? Background to my question: Those who know me a little better on Commons know that I have very high standards for my own image uploads. However, when going through older images or my user category (Images by Tuxyso), I noticed that some users have created derivative works (mostly crops) and have taken over the complete image description including categories. The created crops are (unfortunately) mostly no improvement. As a result, the images are still categorised as (Image by Tuxyso), but no longer have QI status. What would you recommend in this case? Simply remove my user category?

Second question: What would be the ideal procedure for (good) derived works? Should I, as the original photographer, re-post the images on QIC with my user category, or should I always remove the user category in such cases?

A few years ago I used an user template of User:Carschten called {{User:Carschten/QI-retouched}} (see below). IMHO a good idea but only applyable for good edits. Usage example: Alte Synagoge Essen 2014-Alternative.jpg (but still no "official" QI status for that image).

Opinions on both questions?

--Tuxyso (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

My answer to the first question: I remove my user category from derivative works of my photos if I happen to find them, e.g. File:Lamium maculatum RF (3x4).jpg derived from File:Lamium maculatum RF.jpg. The status as a QI (or the lack thereof) is not important for this action. I am not sure about my answer to the second question, but I probably would not nominate any crops by other people. And I don't believe that the template is a good idea, especially not if the derivative work was not even successfully assessed as a QI candidate. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know this topic well. It's a pain in the ass to me, specially when some users create derivative works just for fun without any purpose or use in the WM projects. Maybe they are just willing to be "co-author" of the kmage, who knows. When I come across one of those images I usually apply these changes and keep just the category Category:Derivative works from images by User:Poco a poco. You will not see any derivative work of mine becoming QI, I consider that some king of cheating. In the case that the edited version is better, I would remove the QI stamp from the first one. We've had this discussion before with color vs B&W versions. Good to know the reason for that QI candidate :) Poco a poco (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We may need to make it mandatory to request permission for cropping quality and featured images. The cropping option would be locked, similar to how it works when uploading a new version of a non-owned image. Riad Salih (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The CC BY-SA licenses allow derivatives. No separate permission for derivatives (drops) is required. It is only important that the license conditions are adhered to. This includes in any case that not only the author of the original, but also the author of the derivative is named. --XRay 💬 08:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I remove all my user categories from derivatives and all assessment labels. Additional I add the user made the derivative to the list of authors, because he/she is responsible for the modifications and this is part of the license. IMO there is no assessment information necessary. A derivative isn't automatically QI. It can certainly be nominated and it depends on the type of processing whether the derivative also has a chance as a QIC. May be both are QI. --XRay 💬 08:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I add my user categories to derivatives where they're missing, since they are still my photos and I want to keep track of them. However, I would remove any categories/templates related to QI, since my understanding is that QI status is for the main image only. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it's a little vanity: However, if I were to leave the category at Images by Tuxyso even for derivative works, this would have a negative effect on the ratio of quality images to non-quality images. Therefore, I think the solution of using a category as suggested by Poco a poco to use a user category for derivative works is very good, e.g. Derivative works from images by User:Poco a poco --Tuxyso (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have to correct myself at one point. I do remove all user categories for derivatives, but I also add one. This is only for derivatives. --XRay 💬 18:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, I don't keep track of that ratio, particularly since quite a few of my photos are intended as record shots that would never be QI's (e.g., the back of a statue). I have nothing against derivative categories, though, they sound good if you have the time to populate them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Derivatives should be required to be reassessed for QI, as they can be anything from a simple crop to colour changes to being part of a larger work or collage. Creating a personal category of derivative works shouldnt be any an issue if you are using them to track image usages. There shouldnt be a template on these files without the new image passing QI Gnangarra 08:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does it fit the rules? Анастасия Львова^ru/en 14:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply