Category talk:Quality images by user

Delete header

• (es) Considero que el encabezamiento de esta página, el cual permite comparar usuarios y sus contribuciones, debería ser borrado por el bien de la comunidad. En mi opinión, crea problemas--Miguel Bugallo 01:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New question

I added my log in name, but I don't know how to put here the number of my QI. Who can help me? --Llorenzi (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

is already done. --F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 09:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete table

The table is incomplete. Only 213 of the approximately 462 users listed in the subcategories are included.
Is there a way to automate this?
--F. Riedelio • Diskussion • ✉ 09:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought people are adding themself if they are interested in being part of that list. August Geyler (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing the table

I think the table should be removed from this category, because:

1. It tries to unnecessarily duplicate the category tree
2. It's not useful, since the username is in the category names anyway, and the categories list the number of enclosed files.
3. The table is sortable, but that's not much use since the categories are already sorted by username
4. It's incomplete, and is likely never to be fully maintained so that it remains complete. Meanwhile the category list is automatically updated when new categories are added to it.
5. It overshadows the category tree - you have to scroll down a long way to even see the start of the categories.
6. This is really not the way that we do categories here - if this table is important then it should be moved to a page in the Commons namespace.

Bringing here for discussion due to the reverts by @Stepro: when I tried to remove it directly. What does everyone think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not part of the main category tree. The only people who care about it are people who participate in the process. The purpose is a way to sort by number of QIs. If there's a good reason for removing it, it's to disincentivize lots of nominations. But it's a process that exists primarily for its participants rather than casual users. The table doesn't have to be complete because it's optional. Some people don't have categories; some have categories but have opted not to be part of the table. Not seeing an issue, let alone one worth edit warring over. BTW there are similar tables for the corresponding FP and VI categories (and possibly more I don't know about). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It seems to be opt in rather than opt out? If it's actually useful, I could code up a bot script to automatically maintain it, and would suggest moving it to a new page at Commons:Quality images by user. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is opt-in as far as I know, yes. There are no written rules about this as far as I know, but in my experience people take it upon themselves to create a user category, then take it upon themselves to add their name to the list. I think there have been people in the past who have intentionally removed themselves from the table, but I can't recall examples. Based on that perception, opt-in makes the most sense to me.

I don't have a strong opinion about where it exists, but it's been here since 2010, people who care about it know where to find it, and I don't see much benefit in turning one page into two pages. It's a little unusual for a category page, but as long as it's not breaking anything, what's the harm? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

From my POV, see #5 above, this was why I wanted to remove it in the first place - moving it to a Commons namespace page also fixes that. An alternative might be to auto-collapse it, so it doesn't take up much space unless users want to see it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the auto-collapse idea... --Dschwen (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this table is optional and important for those who are interested. Moving this to a page, might be an acceptable idea. August Geyler (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro, Rhododendrites, and Augustgeyler: I've set up Commons:Quality images by user as a bot-updated table, hopefully that solves this issue? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel:

• You have successfully broken a system that has been working for more than 10 years withoout the need for any bot work.
• Now there are users on the lists, which have not been before, without asking them.
• You have done the deletion a third time, without waiting a propoer time for discussion. That's called edit war.
• You have done the same at FP without any discussion there.
• There are many bugs at the FP list.
• The same for VI.

I wonder that you have an sysop flag. --Stepro (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro: It seems to have been broken for a long time, with only manual additions? If there are bugs, please describe them so I can fix them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It wasn't broken, it worked exactly as it should. Just not the way you want it.

You can see the first errors in the table heading, but above all in entries that obviously do not belong there. These are clearly recognizable.

There was a working opt-in list that needed no improvement and had been working for more than 10 years. Now there are lists of users who didn't consent, who need unnecessarily a bot, and nonsense entries.

That's it for me now on this topic. I think it's a pity that you absolutely have to bang your head against the wall and can't wait for a discussion about it. --Stepro (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to restore the table? Why was there not a discussion at first and after take the action? Tournasol7 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tournasol7: The table is now at Commons:Quality images by user. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A relevant discussion: Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Request for input: Quality images by user (and similar pages). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)