Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Evaluation of scanned photographs on conventional film material

I think it is counterproductive to slavishly follow the rules designed for digital photography when evaluating scans of conventional photographs. This applies in particular to the aspect of "image noise". Conventional films never show image noise, but grain. This is to be evaluated fundamentally differently from digital noise. In the case of photographed paintings, frescoes or the like, we do not evaluate the brushstroke or possible damage or yellowing or darkening, but the quality of the reproduction. If a conventional photograph has been reproduced in good quality and in a resolution of more than about six MPixels, visible grain should not be the only reason for rejection. Of course, errors that were already errors in the days of photography on chemical film should still be included in the evaluation. Anyone who shot a sunny landscape with a film pushed to ISO800 at f/22 and 1/60s and produced a very grainy image with muddy shadow areas and blur by diffraction did something wrong even in 1980. -- Smial (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I am with you Smial. Let's think of an image, shot on film in a correct and quality way. I can not find anything in the rules, telling us to oppose a nomination due to normal grain. But what my example nomination produced was exactly this. Many opposing statements about "noise". Should we write down a rule, saying images shot in reversal film can not be QI? Otherwise we should not complain about grain. August Geyler (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There is also an exaggerated noise phobia. Noise is information and used consistently should be acceptable, by forcing photographers to eliminate noise we are removing visual and non-visual information that could be restored later. I am particularly in favor of not penalizing noise unless it is excessive and misused with respect to the camera sensor --Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The future of QICbot

It looks like we have a serious problem with the gallery pages. Some of them are so huge that they can no longer be displayed. (See above.) Not only do they disrupt the bot, but they also no longer serve any purpose. I don't know how to change the software. But I would at least like to come up with an idea of how one could work in the future.

1. Modify the bot. The bot should not work with gallery pages. So the updating of the gallery pages should be stopped.
2. The templates should be changed to something like File:Any_file.jpg|{{/Nomination|category=Quality images of buildings in France|nomination=Text for the nomination|review=The review}}. Additional categories should be possible with category1, category2 and so on.
3. The bot should add the template {{QualityImage}} and the categories.
4. The bot should be more tolerant - for example with the white spaces.
5. Lines that are not in the correct format are ignored.
6. The nomination tools should be up to date.
7. The old gallery pages should be dropped/removed.
8. A new gallery page may be possible with all new promoted images, but only the last 4 weeks.

Any other ideas? Any idea how to initiate the modification? --XRay 💬 12:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I have long advocated for deprecating QI gallery pages entirely. Nobody ever looks at them or maintains them; categories are more than sufficient. Even FP galleries are pretty overwhelming these days, and now imagine more than 10x that. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment "Nobody ever looks at them or maintains them" - That's not quite true. In the past, I used to split up a lot of pages that had become too large into archives. I stopped this work after earlier discussions declared the gallery pages obsolete and my efforts superfluous because a better solution would shortly be available. It is not as if the problem addressed by xray were a new one. What value will "shortly" take this time? --Smial (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for XRay's suggestion, which I find very good. In the last few days, I had a bit more time than usual to conscientiously do the sorting into the appropriate galleries. The page with the recently promoted QI's got bigger and bigger. This work afterwards could maybe eliminated by the proposed procedure of using categories. Unfortunately, I don't have the programming skills to make concrete implementation suggestions. Just as a proposal to temporarily fix the problem of the constant QIbot failures: The overflow galleries, such as Mixed or Natural structures, could be archived in parts for now.
  Happy Season's Greetings :) -- Radomianin (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Natural structures done. --Smial (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Smial: Great that you had the same idea and did this work a few minutes before my comment. That was probably thought transfer :) Thank you very much! -- Radomianin (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, the problem should generally be eliminated. A change to the bot is required for this. I don't think the galleries are expedient and they shouldn't be looked after any further. --XRay 💬 14:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Should I then simply undo all my changes and archiving to get things moving? I would now have a few days off to do this. --Smial (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smial: Thank you very much for the work you have already done. It would be good if you (or someone else) could archive all the galleries. Then the bot should work properly again, at least for the time being. I agree with the suggestion to use cateogries instead of galleries in the future. However, this is time consuming in two ways. Firstly, the QI bot has to be rewritten (we don't know whether the people responsible for this have the time). Secondly, all previous quality images would also need to be categorised. Chme82 (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

QICbot is not working properly

Hi, yesterday, QICbot wrote me on my discussion page about promoting my photos, but not today. Nevertheless, he correctly marked my two photos (File:Pěchotní srub StM-S 31b Ozdravovna 01.jpg and File:Pěchotní srub StM-S 31a Borek 03.jpg) as QI.--MIGORMCZ (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What's about QICbot?

QICbot didn't run yesterday and today. It looks like the bot didn't start. --XRay 💬 06:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The bot was last active on October 27. This looks like a major problem.--Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote to Dschwen two days ago. This morning I've also sent an email. Until this moment I haven't received an answer. -- Jakubhal 11:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging Eatcha as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  See https://github.com/Commonists/QICbot/pull/3 -- Eatcha (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Just a sidenote: Thank you, Eatcha, also for improving the code (finally Python 3!) and its formatting! I cannot appreciate or judge all the details, but the Python code looks much more readable now. This could be important for finding more maintainers. When I looked some time ago at the source code of some of our scripts, I was put off because the code looked so … Now, with proper Python 3 code and improved code formatting, it’s much easier to read and therefore it should be easier for possible new maintainers to get started. --Aristeas (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you Eatcha. That PR will solve the problem with the bot? Do we need to wait for Dschwen's review, or is there anyone else who can review and accept changes? From where (which server) the bot is running and is it possible to have more people maintaining it? -- Jakubhal 14:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, I already merged the changes and just deployed the bot. For that I created a virtual python environment and adapted the run script. The bot is currently running, so I hope that solves the issue. More maintainers would be nice for sure. I'm sorry that you were disgusted by my poor python formatting Aristeas :-D ... --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, I'm suddenly seeing a lot of

write to 'b'Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Natural structures'' seems to have failed
ERROR: An error occurred for uri https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php
ERROR: Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/data/api.py", line 1488, in _http_request
    data=data, headers=headers)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/tools/_deprecate.py", line 404, in wrapper
    return obj(*__args, **__kw)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 263, in request
    r = fetch(baseuri, headers=headers, **kwargs)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/tools/_deprecate.py", line 404, in wrapper
    return obj(*__args, **__kw)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 425, in fetch
    callback(response)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 308, in error_handling_callback
    raise response from None
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pywikibot/comms/http.py", line 418, in fetch
    **kwargs)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 542, in request
    resp = self.send(prep, **send_kwargs)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/requests/sessions.py", line 655, in send
    r = adapter.send(request, **kwargs)
  File "/mnt/nfs/labstore-secondary-tools-project/qic/qic_venv/lib/python3.5/site-packages/requests/adapters.py", line 529, in send
    raise ReadTimeout(e, request=request)
requests.exceptions.ReadTimeout: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='commons.wikimedia.org', port=443): Read timed out. (read timeout=45)

--Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And recent promotions have got lost.--KaiBorgeest (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we just deprecate all the QI galleries? They are impossible to load and nobody ever looks at them. Categories should be sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The QICbot started today, but stops. --05:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I replied on the PR. -- Eatcha (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 10th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: The QICbot stopped again today. Quality images are archived, the bot started marking unassessed images and stops. Please have a look. --XRay 💬 05:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Template {{QualityImage}} manually added - except protected File:Symbol support vote.svg. --05:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 12th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: The QICbot stopped again today. No archive file was created, but all the nominations were removed. --XRay 💬 05:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 15th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, but the bot stopped again today. --XRay 💬 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 17th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, but the bot stopped again today. Why does the bot stops so often? --XRay 💬 05:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/qic/Wed_Nov_17_04%3A58%3A10_UTC_2021.txt. And head over to the last line, noticed the pywikibot.exceptions.InvalidTitleError? Caused by a malformed file name, visit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&action=edit&oldid=607734568 and search for 'Pörtschach_Werzer_Prom--{{Unsubstituted_signature}}enade_Strandcasino_Werzer_11102021_1649.jpg' and it's clear from this edit that Johann Jaritz is not at fault but someone else added the invalid braces into the file name. User:Maksimsokolov explain this edit, and please try to avoid this in future. Eatcha (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ping @XRay Eatcha (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. --XRay 💬 13:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I don't understand myself how I did this edit. Most probably, I inserted my signature while the cursor was in that place by accident. Will watch for this in future edits --Maksim Sokolov (talk). 16:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the bot should be more fault-tolerant. Instead of stopping entirely, it could just skip invalid titles (and report them somewhere, preferably on a Commons page, which people can put on their watchlists). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 21th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, but the bot stopped again today. I don't know why. The images where removed, but no archive file was created. Please have a look again. --XRay 💬 06:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 25th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: I'm sorry if I have to point out that the bot started today but then stopped. --XRay 💬 05:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 26th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry again. The bot runs 8 minutes today and stopped without finishing the work. --XRay 💬 05:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 28th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry. A few minutes and stopped without finishing the work. --XRay 💬 05:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop November 29th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, again the bot stopped. Will the bot bot automatically restarted one hour later? --XRay 💬 05:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 2nd

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 06:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 5th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 06:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 6th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 05:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The archive page exists. So I just added the QI template to the images of today. --XRay 💬 07:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 7th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 05:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Manually marked. Is there a reason why the bot fails so often lately? Also, I think there should be a way to restart the bot to finish the job on the stage it stopped - it's easy when archive is already constructed but tiring and laborious for a person -- Jakubhal 18:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 9th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 06:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eatcha, Dschwen, XRay, and Jakubhal: It's a pity that the QI-Bot hasn't been running properly most of the time since the end of October. With my last nomination, also at the end of October, I noticed that not only the QI bot was not running, but also BotMultichillT. When I asked the person responsible for this bot, I was informed of the following: phab:T280806. I am not a programming expert, but could this also be a reason why the QI Bot keeps stopping? Chme82 (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 10th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 05:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 13th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 05:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Eatcha and Dschwen: Hello, it looks like the resumed bot hanged out again, in the middle of promoting images. I have added the missing tags for today. Could be please check what happens and fix the problem for future? -- Jakubhal 15:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 15th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 05:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 16th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. My impression is that the bot always gets stuck in the same place. The last entry before that is often Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Natural structures. --XRay 💬 05:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eatcha, Dschwen, and XRay: When opening the page Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Natural structures, the message 'Unstrip size limit exceeded (5,000,000)' appears. Does this eventually cause problems for the QI-bot? I'm just trying to give tips here. It would be really helpful to know where exactly the problem is, if it is being worked on or if you need further help? Chme82 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

May be the galleries are too big? IMO we should switch to categories and stop using galleries. Galleries are good for samples with a limited number of images. --XRay 💬 07:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, those galleries are useless. Poco a poco (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 17th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. My impression is that the bot always gets stuck in the same place. The last entry before that is again Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Natural structures. The size of the galleries may be a serious problem. --XRay 💬 05:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 18th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. --XRay 💬 06:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop December 19th

@Eatcha and Dschwen: Sorry, and again, the bot stopped unexpected. Today with another reason. Archive page was created, I'd added the QI template manually. --XRay 💬 06:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Archives

• Obviously, the vast majority of entries on these pages get moldy. Nothing links there, almost nobody cares about the fate of their photos. Delete it? Wait for a miracle? See also below --Smial (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Archive November 1

I've created an archive page for November 1, 2021: Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 01 2021. So the number of current nominations can be reduced.

You have to do the following steps to add your nominations yourself:

1. Check the date. It must be at least 2 days from today.
2. Add the nominations to the archive file.
3. Change the path, for example: {{/Promotion|... to {{../Promotion|....
4. Remove the nominations at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list‎.
5. If promoted: Add {{QualityImage}} to the files.

-- XRay 💬 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks XRay. --Knopik-som (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Archive November 2

The size of the page becomes a little bit critical. So I've created the archive page for November 2. Please add your own nominations manually. --XRay 💬 08:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, XRay! --Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the initiative, XRay, I moved my promoted files over to the archive --Poco a poco (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 02 2021

• Promoted images from November 2 archive are tagged. Additionally, three files had their template broken. Fixed and tagged also. -- Jakubhal 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Help!? Does this promoted QI need template and category?

I believe File:Central Library, Seattle (2014) - 03.JPG was promoted, but did not get the QI template or category added. Perhaps this is still in a queue, but in case not, can these be added manually? Just noticing how this file seems to have been treated differently than my other recent promotions. Thanks, -Another Believer (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just went ahead and manually added the "QualityImage" template. Hope that's ok -Another Believer (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Another Believer: You did everything right :) In the past weeks, the QIC bot worked incorrectly from time to time, so that some promoted photos have to be sorted and labeled manually. As you can read on the discussion page above, the problem is known. A short-term solution is not (yet) available. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for reply. -Another Believer (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Circumvention of the '5 noms' rule

As known, we have a maximum of 5 nominations per user and day, however we have one user whose photos have been nominated 10 times a day for months (years?), every single day. It is Tournasol7 who nominates five pics himself plus lets further five pics be nominated by Sebring12Hrs. Example as of today: [1] [2] It's not forbidden, but if it's done systematically then I wonder if this is really what the '5 noms' rule is for? No one notice, no one cares? I appreciate Tournasol's work, but is he any special? Regards --A.Savin 12:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I can't help him with 5 nominations per day ? We are two different users. When I nominates 5 pictures of Tournasol7, I don't nominate other pictures. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not forbidden because I will not verify if Tournasol7 is also nominating pictures the same day !!! May be you do the same thing ! --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC) You are not right at all. I don't like your remarque ! --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is 5 per day by account, not 5 per day by author ! You see the difference ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it @Tournasol7:  ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Now calm down a bit. By the way, your claim "May be you do the same thing" is obviously wrong -- I don't nominate anything by me, not even one pic/day. Regards --A.Savin 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I would like to thank Sebring12Hrs for the nominations. He does it completely selflessly and voluntarily, in line with the spirit of the Wiki Foundation. Really someone thinks this is harmful? Tournasol7 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This rule is not out of self-aggrandisement, but to raise quality; nominators should select pictures more carefully and reviewers should not be overloaded. If you think that the rule should be abolished, feel free to start a proposal, but it's not appropriate to circumvent it. Regards --A.Savin 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't have a hard cap per photographer, because then photographers might find themselves prevented from nominating their own works unexpectedly due to the actions of another well-intentioned user. I do feel that when a user primarily nominates images by other people, they should not focus a majority of their nominations on the works of one photographer. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I had noticed that too. Sebring12Hrs acts very one-sidedly. If Sebring12Hrs had focused on me like that, I would ask him to turn his attention also to the many other photographers. Five nominations from different photographers would bee in better taste. Or a different photographer every day. --Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I can ask to @Velvet: if he wants help for nomination ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I totally understand the impetus behind this discussion. I'd say it's different when a user concentrates on nominating photos by one other user but that user doesn't nominate their own work. So I'd have to see the wording of a proposed rule change before voting on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sebring12Hrs, how about not only supporting images of contributors who also do a lot of self nominations? How about looking for images of users that might not yet have discovered the QI process? It would be awesome if you helped users discover this page and make their best pictures visible to all of us. Kritzolina (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, sometimes, I nominate the pictures of : Moonik, Pline, Coyau, Velvet, Mbzt... Secondely, Tournasol7 saw that I nominate Albi Tournasol pictures, so he asks me my help few months ago, and I accepted. So please Kritzolina, learn before talk... I think I will not answer here... This is a non coordonate attack on me, I prefer withdraw... --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If he asked for your help, that was an improper and unfair circumvention of the 5-picture limit per user, and you should be less ornery while you and he are in the wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, if my comment felt like an attack to you, Sebring12Hrs. It was not meant to be one. It was rather meant to encourage you to perhaps redirect your good efforts in a way that would benefit more people and the community as a whole a bit more. As others explained below, if anyone is in the wrong here, it is Tournasol7 for asking you to help with nominations in this way. I am again not really sure if we can call him in the wrong, as everything was according to rules, but as you can see several people see problems with this kind of arrangement, where one user repeatedly nominate images of someone who is nominating images himself on a regular basis. As most people know here, I am always a fan of promoting diversity and my comment was motivated by bringing this point up, rather than by anything else. Please accept my apologies. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

At this point I would like to apologize to Sebring12Hrs for being a victim of personal attacks. After all, he only wanted help, completely selflessly. If you want to attack someone, it should rather be me, because I caused all the confusion.

And yes, I asked Sebring12Hrs to help me to nominate photos. I will say more, I encourage everyone to help in nominating my photos, which you can find out on my user page. I have many photos that deserve the status of QI and if I had to nominate them myself it would take me over 100 years ... As stated above it is not forbidden. Some say it is wrong so please tell me why. I make a lot of mistakes myself, so sometimes I also have a problem with getting things simple for others.

I also don't understand the accusations against me of bad intentions. Self-aggrandisement, really? I'm just a simple user. Improving the quality - after all, the whole nomination process is the goal. I myself try to reliably check the nominations of other users.

A.Savin, I appreciate your work on the Wiki. You take many beautiful pictures. You're doing a really great job. But I don't understand the attack on me and sebring. What is the purpose of all this confusion? So what is the purpose of highlighting certain pictures to QI anyway? Where are we going? Is our goal to increase bureaucracy, or is it possible to voluntarily and disinterestedly distinguish good photos?

Sorry if i hurted someone. Nice weekend for everyone. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Tournasol7, I have no doubt that you have many good photos. But others have that too and they also make a pre-selection. Imagine everyone flooding QIC with such helpers with good photos. The system would be overloaded. That's why the limit of 5 is there. You're bypassing that, and I feel like there shouldn't be an exception for you. Milseburg (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tournasol7: How do you come to conclusion that my comment about you was a personal attack; where did I accuse you of self-aggrandisement; and why on Earth is it so important to have ALL your own pictures promoted, especially if this would take -- as of your estimate -- 100 years anyway (or 50, with the help from Sebring)? I'm curious, indeed. Regards --A.Savin 15:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Sebring12Hrs writes "May be you do the same thing", this is indeed a personal attack, especially given the fact that it's not true. --A.Savin 15:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand from previous discussions that image labelling was originally conceived as a form of recognition to encourage contributors to upload their best images to Commons. But Commons is now a huge image bank in which the question of sorting has become a real issue for the end user. This is why it seems to me that labelling should no longer be seen simply as an individual reward but as a search tool for the end user. In this perspective, all images meeting a certain level of quality should be labelled. The labelling process being what it is, it is justified that the number of images proposed daily by the same contributor be limited in order to avoid that one of them saturates it by proposing too many images the same day. On the other hand, it is necessary for a contributor to be able to propose images that he or she has not created in order to extend as widely as possible the search for quality images available in Commons. As long as these two principles are respected, I don't really see what can be reproached to Tournasol7 and Sebring12Hrs. Except for the fear of a generalisation of this practice which would create a new risk of saturation of the labelling process. But then the question is: how many contributors can upload 3650 quality images to Commons each year? Not a lot I'm afraid. --Velvet (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

An increasing number, as cellphones improve, depending on what happens to standards on this board. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

When this happens, we will all be very happy. We will then have to find a new way to increase the number of labels if the current system cannot cope. For the moment, it seems to me that it is not overwhelmed. --Velvet (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We "simply" need an image assessment bot. That would also prevent a lot of arguments and rolling eyes. But seriously: Compared to the originally intended goals and purposes, QIC has unfortunately long since turned into an event where a rather small number of contributors try to get a colorful quality sticker for each of their pictures, all garnished with carefully cultivated enmities and vanities. The broadest possible improvement of the image quality for all areas of wikipedia does not seem to be so important anymore. --Smial (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Almost a week has passed so I would like to know what is your proposal for changes? Tournasol7 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The 5 noms' rule is fine with me as is. I'm not planning to propose changes on that. Regards --A.Savin 17:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

So we return to what was before the discussion? Tournasol7 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As already said, I oppose nominating 10 pictures a day. Yet I cannot force you to stop doing it, if else nobody cares. --A.Savin 20:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I only came across this discussion yesterday. I wouldn't mind a more explicit rule like "five images per day and author". That would prevent any misunderstandings. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Palauenc05. This is what needs to be done. Five images per day and author or we stay as it's now. Rules need to be clear to avoid future misunderstandings. Tournasol7 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd support that as a new rule, too. Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd oppose this as a hard rule, per my comment above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd oppose it, per discussion above.--Velvet (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support it. Ermell (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this rule unless we see evidence of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry seems to be implied in this particular case, and why this case was flagged while nobody has cared all of the many, many times nominations of a single author's work has exceeded 5. if Sebring were nominating lots of different people's photos, but each time they did so, it was in excess of 5 for that creator, would this be a problem? I suspect not? So the issues seems more behavioral than procedural, to the extent there is a problem at all. What exactly is the harm, otherwise? As far as I can tell, the images are passing, so there is not a problem of quality. Is the problem that QI numbers are very serious business and they must be further rate-limited, even if the quality meets our standards? Is the issue that there are too many nominations on the page? Then let's decrease the max from 5 to 3. If this is meatpuppetry, take it to a noticeboard. If not, I'd be interested to hear what the real harm is. Let's not create new rules based on a single case. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• As you all know, I don’t feel comfortable with what QIC has become in the last years, when its initial purpose slowly shifted from the end users to the glory of the creators. Yes, it is perfectly alright to expect the recognition of our peers and exhibit the QI seal in our good pictures. But it is not alright to transform the whole thing in a race and a fair of vanities. As you also know, this shift is having some negative impact on the quality of the images, when series of similar pictures are nominated in a row – with minimal concern for their real quality – and the reviewers seem sometimes more focused in the promotion of their own pictures than on a competent review. Having said this (I would suffocate if I didn’t...), I’m in favor of any measure that can alleviate the present condition or, alternatively, give a clear sign against the gaming of the system. Unfortunately, I didn’t feel the necessary support in the discussion I launched a couple of months ago, and that is why no specific proposals were then submitted to the community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • when its initial purpose slowly shifted - But a key takeaway from that recent discussion (and several before it) is the purpose has always been about creators. Hence why only Commons users' photos are eligible. Any change to the rules should bear that in mind. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support Paulenc's proposal "five images per day and author". --Milseburg (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If we feel that the daily number of QI candidates is getting difficult to manage, we could put a little more stress on this guideline: «If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.» If everyone is able to carefully review the same (or a slightly higher) number of pictures they candidate, QI backlog should remain acceptably short. I agree with King of Hearts in that the "five images per day and author" rule has the problem to unpredictably influence the number of own nominations, while nominating other people's pictures is not to discourage at all. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot-relisting unassessed candidates?

Hi, I recently came across Category:Unassessed QI candidates. As far as I can see, these were listed but got no input within 8 days - which could have easily happened during a busy time when they were missed. I'd like to propose an experiment: what if these were bot-renominated for discussion? Perhaps at a constant rate (e.g., 10/day would take about 5.2 years to go through the backlog), or when there are fewer candidates here (e.g., less than a total number per day / for all current listings / over a % unassessed)? I could write some bot code to do this - but would it be interesting/useful? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think backfilling them is a useful exercise, but going forward we could have QICbot automatically refresh candidates to the top of the page after 8 days instead of taking them down. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Refreshing candidates rather than moving them to the category sounds good to me. But presumably quite a lot of work has gone into nominating the images that now sit in this category - should that be lost? If they aren't worth recycling, though, perhaps the category should be deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the time a candidate isn't reviewed, it should be considered a decline. There are more people willing to promote than decline, and images that are archived without review are typically ones people did review and chose not to promote. Automatically renominating them may change that habit, or may fill the nomination page with piles of nominations nobody wants to review. There are some cases that something should pass, such as when there are comments and the initial reviewer doesn't follow up to promote, but they are IMO less frequent. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites here. I am one of those persons who prefers to not do declines, except in very clear cases or in the review section. I also prefer to have one on my nominations slip out of notice into this category of unassessed QIs and not see them declined. To me this means they were not quite good enough to make it, but not horrible. And that is how I also see the other images in that category. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites (and Kritzolina) too. IMO we do not use this category. If my image became unassessed, sometimes I try it a second time, but often I just remove the category and threat this as decline. The images may be good, but not good enough for QI. --XRay 💬 08:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

+1. The category has always been completely superfluous. If a photo is not rated, the respective photographer can observe this himself and either decide to run again or simply accept it. Nobody, really nobody else is interested in these pictures and this category. --Smial (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Rhododendrites, Kritzolina, XRay, and Smial: OK, thanks for the background. Given this, I've nominated the category for deletion/discussion, please comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Unassessed QI candidates. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Candidates archived but not tagged?

Files at Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2022 seem to have been archived, but without the file pages gaining the QI tag for promotions? Bot bug @Dschwen? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed I'm seeing this on two of my images, File:Derwentwater (DSCF8800).jpg and File:Departement Materiaalkunde - KU Leuven (DSC 2155).jpg it seems to affect all images on the page. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

bot missed some?

Just noticed the two images I nominated which are here: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_March_24_2022 were never tagged and no message was left. Presumably there are others. FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Fix missing QI promotion template script

Hello all,

I've made a python script which can be manually run to add the QualityImage template on a given archive page when the QICBot missed them. I ran it on Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2022 and Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 24 2022, hope it worked well.

It does not currently leave a message on the authors' page.

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
"""
Add QualityImage template on promoted images missed by the QI bot. (Wikimedia Commons)
usage: python wikiqi.py "PAGENAME" <USERNAME> "PASSWORD"
egusage: python wikiqi.py "Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2022" trougnouf "1234"
@author: trougnouf
"""

import simplemediawiki
import sys

def get_wikitext(wiki, page: str):
    '''
    args:
        page: title (eg: "File:Waterwilg (DSC 2539).jpg")
    '''
    res = wiki.call({'action': 'parse', 'page': page, 'prop': 'wikitext'})
    return res['parse']['wikitext']['*']
    
def get_token(wiki):
    res = wiki.call({'action': 'query', 'meta': 'tokens'})
    return res['query']['tokens']['csrftoken']

if __name__ == '__main__':
    if '--help' in sys.argv or '-h' in sys.argv:
        exit('usage: python wikiqi.py "PAGENAME" <USERNAME> <PASSWORD>')
    page_name = sys.argv[1]
    username = sys.argv[2]
    password = sys.argv[3]
    user_agent = simplemediawiki.build_user_agent('TrougnoufsWCBot', 1, 'http://trougnouf.com')
    apiurl = 'https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php'
    wiki = simplemediawiki.MediaWiki(apiurl, user_agent=user_agent)
    wiki.login(username, password)
    page_wikitext = get_wikitext(wiki, page_name)
    assessments = page_wikitext.split('File:')
    promoted_files = []
    for assessment in assessments:
        if 'Promotion|' in assessment:
            promoted_files.append(assessment.split('|')[0])
    for promoted_file in promoted_files:
        page_name = 'File:'+promoted_file
        page_wikitext = get_wikitext(wiki, page_name)
        if '{{QualityImage}}' not in page_wikitext:
            wiki.call({'action': 'edit', 'title': page_name, 'appendtext': '\n{{QualityImage}}\n', 'token': get_token(wiki), 'bot': True, 'minor': True, 'summary': 'TrougnoufsWCBot: add quality assessment'})
            print(f'Added quality assessment to {page_name}')

[trougnouf@uryzen:~/dev]$ python -i wikiqi.py "Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 21 2022" Trougnouf "redacted"
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(010).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(011).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:20100523_Grote_Markt_en_Martinitoren_Groningen_NL.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Istanbul_Airport,_Arnavutköy_(P1090186).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Opel_Insignia_Sports_Tourer_20220313_HOF09527_RAW-Export_20220314001578cens.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Man_in_a_street_-_café_in_Palma.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:2006_09_06_111_Urlaub_Ruegen.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:004_2016_11_24_Luftfahrzeuge.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:001_2019_05_27_Augenpflege.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:001_1997_10_18_Barns.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Ladestation_für_E-Autos_20220313_HOF09521.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Möhren_in_Vancouver.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:1_moraine_lake_pano_2019.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sninský_kameň_-_inverzia_034.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_sloth_bear_(Melursus_ursinus_inornatus)_male_1.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_sloth_bear_(Melursus_ursinus_inornatus)_male_3.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_sloth_bear_(Melursus_ursinus_inornatus)_male_6.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_spotted_deer_(Axis_axis_ceylonensis)_male.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Banz_Kirche_Türme-20220304-RM-105302.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Köln_Zoo_Flußpferde-20110912-RM-165927.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Himmelkron_Kirche_Decke_HDR-20220306-RM-164134.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Himmelkron_Kriegerdenkmal-20220306-RM-170610.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Idukki_Reservoir_Pano_Calvary_Mount_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01220-23_Pano.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Oliva_sidelia_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:St_Joseph_church_in_Boisse-Penchot_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Saint_Peter_church_in_Naves_04.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Saint_Magdalene_church_in_Jamblusse_08.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:St_Peter_in_chains_church_in_Saillagol_03.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Cross_at_Place_de_la_Halle_in_Naves_(2).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Het_Koningin_Wilhelminabos._Levenspad_KWF_Kankerbestrijding._28-02-2022._(actm.).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Tea_Western_Ghats_Calvary_Mount_Idukki_Kerala_Mar22_R16_05624.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Tea_Idukki_Reservoir_Calvary_Mount_Kerala_Mar22_R16_05635.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_Moosburger_Straße_25_Kärntner_Hof_Eingang_und_Fensteräden_28012014_2059.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_10.-Oktober-Straße_Abstellplatz_für_Bootsanhänger_Segelboote_03032022_2262.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Black_redstart_at_Nasirpur,_Patiala_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Black_redstart_at_Nasirpur,_Patiala_03.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Οικίσκοι_για_τους_σεισμοπαθείς,_Αρκαλοχώρι_0487-B&N.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Attention,_geology!.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Theater_Hof_bei_Nacht_20220311_HOF09407.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Banana_Inflorescence_Cheruthony_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01267.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:St_James_church_in_Puylagarde_06.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(002).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:383_-_Head_of_central_bearded_dragon_(Pogona_vitticeps).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Kulamavu_Idukki_SH33_Forest_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01129.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Derwentwater_(DSCF8800).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Char_du_carnaval_(Colmar)_(2).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Departement_Materiaalkunde_-_KU_Leuven_(DSC_2155).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:FC_Admira_Wacker_Mödling_vs._LASK_Linz_2018-08-12_(081).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:003_2016_02_08_Brechung.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Maker_Faire,_Berlin_(BL7C0262).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:BB_Polo,_IAA_2017,_Frankfurt_am_Main_(1Y7A3164).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_female_5.jpg
>>> 
[trougnouf@uryzen:~/dev]$ python -i wikiqi.py "Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 24 2022" Trougnouf "redacted"
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_10.-Oktober-Straße_Abstellplatz_für_Bootsanhänger_Segelboote_19032022_2264.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_10.-Oktober-Straße_35_Appartementhaus_SO-Ansicht_19032022_2265.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_Khevenhüllerweg_1_Appartementhaus_SO-Ansicht_19032022_2266.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_Hauptstraße_205_Residenzen_Weißes_Rössl_19032022_2268.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_Hauptstraße_203_Congress-Center_S-Ansicht_19032022_2267.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Common_firecrest_Franconville_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Common_firecrest_Franconville_02.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Common_firecrest_Franconville_04.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Blue_tit_2022_03_18_02.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Feral_pigeon_2022_03_18_02.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(027).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(028).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(030).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Tuning_World_Bodensee_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(OW1A0659).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:EBACE_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB190524).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Starkstrommast_P1300643.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:00423_Train_loaded_with_containers_bound_for_Hamburg_harbour.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:356_Tower_of_St._Petri_in_Luebeck_from_S.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Lueneburg_town_hall_illuminated_in_Ukrainian_colours.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Green_garden_lizard_(Calotes_calotes)_juvenile_and_common_jezebel_(Delias_eucharis).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Green_garden_lizard_(Calotes_calotes)_male_breeding.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Green_garden_lizard_(Calotes_calotes)_male_non_breeding.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Land_monitor_(Varanus_bengalensis).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Land_monitor_(Varanus_bengalensis)_head.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Grey_heron_2022_03_20.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Heroldsbach_Luftbild-20220303-RM-160651.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Aufseß_Luftbild-20220320-RM-163008.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Aufseßtal_Luftbild-20220313-RM-162658.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Aufseß_Luftbild-20220320-RM-164032.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:002_2019_06_23_Schluessel_und_Schluesselloecher.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:003_2019_06_25_Schluessel_und_Schluesselloecher.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:004_2019_06_25_Schluessel_und_Schluesselloecher.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:002_2019_10_16_Augenpflege.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:002_2019_12_08_Bueromaterial.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Indian_spot-billed_duck_near_Rohti_Chhana,_Patiala_district.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Saint_Michael_church_of_Montredon_11.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:St_Lawrence_church_in_Roujan_(6).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:St_Mary_chapel_in_Corneilhan_(5).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Roman_tower_in_Puissalicon_(3).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:5_Tour_de_ville_in_Entraygues_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Oliva_spicata_01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Het_Koningin_Wilhelminabos._Levenspad_KWF_Kankerbestrijding._28-02-2022._(actm.)_05.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Adenium_Obesum_Flower_Side_Macro_Mar22_D72_23052-58_ZS_P.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Adenium_Obesum_Flower_Bud_Macro_Mar22_D72_23061-67_ZS_P.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Pörtschach_Hauptstraße_205_Residenzen_Weißes_Rössl_19032022_2270.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:2017-09-04_AKADEMIK_IOFFE_-_IMO_8507731_in_Sisimiut,_Greenland.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:American_woodcock_in_Bryant_Park_(54062).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Long-tailed_duck_in_Red_Hook_(94573).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Taal_Volcano_eruption_on_January_12,_2020.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_spotted_deer_(Axis_axis_ceylonensis)_female_and_male.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Sri_Lankan_spotted_deer_(Axis_axis_ceylonensis)_males_and_females.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Green_garden_lizard_(Calotes_calotes)_juvenile_male_head.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Camera-obscura-Mülheim-2022-01.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Mémorial_en_hommage_aux_victimes_de_l'attentat_du_14_juillet_2016_à_Nice_(3).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Cuijk,_Jezusbeeld_en_de_Sint-Martinuskerk_RM11623_IMG_0572_2022-03-13_12.47.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(012).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:Calvary_Mount_Church_Front_Right_Idukki_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01262.jpg
Added quality assessment to File:FC_Admira_Wacker_Mödling_vs._LASK_Linz_2018-08-12_(094).jpg
Added quality assessment to File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(001).jpg

also posted on https://gist.github.com/trougnouf/c51663022827946cfa904e083fa4b8c9

--Trougnouf (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for input: Quality images by user (and similar pages)

Last month there was some edit warring over the table at Category:Quality images by user. Mike Peel removed it and Stepro restored it. There was some discussion on the talk page, and Mike created a different table at Commons:Quality images by user. Whereas the table in the category was opt-in, updated automatically [for those who opted in] by simply counting the files in a given category, the new page includes everyone and is updated by a bot. Given that at least some of the discussion was opposed to this move, and because that discussion has been limited, I thought I'd post it here. Mike has also moved lists out of the respective FP/VI by creator categories (see Commons:Valued images by user and Commons:Featured pictures/Statistics/Featured pictures by creator).

Some thoughts:

• Given how long these tables existed at the categories, we should really have consensus before moving.
• The previous tables were opt-in. I recall that some people did not want to be listed, but don't recall who. This may not actually be a big deal, and I suspect there may be a technical workaround, but I'm not sure.
• There are a number of bugs. Poco is listed twice on the FP list, for example. Most of the bugs are going to be due to variation in the way people categorize their FPs. Some people have diffusing categories, some people have redundant non-diffusing category. I have subcategories for English Wikipedia FPs and FPs by other people that I just nominated, but when it's "by creator" and not "by nominator", we shouldn't be counting all of them together. I suspect that some of these can be fixed; others probably cannot without forcing people into a particular categorization system.
• All in all, I don't actually have a strong opinion one way or the other except for one big general hesitancy that has nothing to do with these specific pages: I'm wary of creating more processes that rely on bots except where necessary. While I think Mike is a talented and dedicated contributor, and have no reason to think he'll be leaving the project anytime soon, Commons suffers from many systems where we came to rely on technical interventions run by people who then became inactive or infrequently active. We have really pressing technical challenges that could use help without creating more. We almost didn't have a POTY last year, and might not this year because it relies on scripts only a couple people know how to use; QICbot, VICbot, FPCbot all have semi-regular problems; FastCCI works a fraction of the time; the photo challenge system should really be redone... I'm sure others can name a variety of other technical issues.

Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  22:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead on this discussion. While I applaud people taking the initiative to improve things here on Commons, I'm sad that in this case information got lost. In the past, our list of Featured Picture creators would show which country people come from. I found that column added extra value and I'd like this information being restored. That being said, I also agree with you that we shouldn't sacrifice our ability to easily maintain pages in cases where it's not necessary. I'm eager to hear what others think. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In general I think the 'Commons' namespace is much better suited for these lists than 'Category' namespace - categories are meant to be categories, not places for big tables. While it's not opt-in now, opt-out is possible if we want (I just add exceptions into the code to skip certain categories), but it's easier if people that want to opt out simply don't set up a tracking category. I think the Poco problem (and some others) is caused by miscategorisation, I don't think Category:Featured pictures by User:Poco a poco should be in the Commons FP category tree. Note that there was a bug with counting category content that the bot code has fixed - if you use subcategories then the old counter didn't include them, while the new code does. The code is fully open source, as with all code that Pi bot runs, so it could be easily taken over by others should I leave (not that I'm planning on doing so any time soon!). I'm also happy to help with some of the other scripts/tasks you mention if needed. On the country column, I'm really unsure how useful that actually is, or how accurate it was (e.g., if people move countries), could you share some background on it please? (Perhaps it could be included in the categories somehow so the bot could pick up the information on each run.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I've given my opinion adequate on Category talk:Quality images by user#Removing the table. I'm still upset of this. But since nobody but me seriously intervened against this (in my opinion) complete nonsense, it just stayed that way. --Stepro (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Stepro: I'm honestly sorry you're upset about this, that wasn't my intention. I'm happy to try to fix any issues you raise with the new system - I'm only trying to improve things. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I never was aware of this table - I am grateful for this discussion which made realize it exists. For me setting up the category for my QIs was a very egoistic thing - I sometimes enjoy just looking at images I am proud of, most of them taken in places I enjoyed visitng. I don't mind being listed there, but wonder how people could be made aware of it, if they have been ignorant until now? --Kritzolina (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Bumping this. While I'm truly grateful when Mike or others help out on Commons with their technical abilities (sorely needed, as I've said in the past), I'm concerned that thus far the only feedback about this move has been ambivalent (as from me, and perhaps Frank, if I'm reading correctly) to decidedly negative (as from Stepro). Mike, I can't help but feel like you're prioritizing "how it ought to be" over the opinions of those who actually use the page. Like when Frank says he misses the country column, this isn't the sort of situation where he should need to plead a case for it to be restored. Kind of the opposite, really. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: I will grant that it's odd to have such a table on the category page. To me, the main debate should be over what kind of table we should have at the Commons namespace page -- one which is bot maintained, is opt-out, has some bugs because of variation in categorization and choice of names, but is clean and more complete, or one like we had before, which is opt-in, with user-designated category names, flexible to display real/username, and to have other user-input columns like country. Either way, I agree that the Commons namespace makes more sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I'm grateful for the discussion, but I think there's always a bias towards negative feedback. There was also @F. Riedelio: who was providing feedback on the bot code (and indeed, suggested it be automated in 2021), but hasn't commented on this discussion, and @Yann: also gave me some feedback about an issue on my talk page but also hasn't commented here. With the flags, I don't think it needs a case to be pleaded, but just some background on why they were there and how they are used (@Frank Schulenburg: . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment as a lot of user have not personal categories, and as we have now SDC, IMO a more relevant table would be based on a querry, placed on a dedicated page and updated by Listeriabot. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: I agree that this would be an improvement - I'm not sure we're at a point where we can technically do this yet though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The flags provide insight into where the creators of featured pictures come from. I found it helpful because I could point at the fact that participation in this part of Commons is highly dependable on whether you come from a rich country or not. However, I don't think we should have to justify why we'd like to have the old version back. It's obvious: the new version doesn't have all of the features and is far more difficult to maintain. And while I like improvements, I don't think things improved in this case. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: If there are no other opinions, I will revert the current status to the version without the bot. Thanks for trying to improve things, but this simply wasn't an improvement. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Frank Schulenburg: A simple revert would break things that the bot fixes, like inaccurate counts due to subcategories, do you plan to fix those a different way? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if you do revert, then I'll change the bot so it updates a different page (probably a user subpage) and leave it running. Also note that the bot is set to auto-update each day, and I can't easily stop that if I'm away from home. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Leaving the bot running on a user subpage sounds fine. We could even link to it from the old one. I'd also add that I tend to agree with Mike that the table makes more sense in the Commons namespace than on the category page (which now links to it), so perhaps migrating the old table would be preferable. (I'm still ambivalent as to the two tables, though -- it's a shame we haven't gotten more comments here). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: It is a shame when regular contributors are not invited to contribute to a discussion. I’ve just found this as I was about to start a new topic on the FP talk page. I don’t appear in Category:Quality images by user or Commons:Featured pictures/Statistics/Featured pictures by creator even though I use a categories like Category:Quality images by Charlesjsharp for FPs QIs and Vis. I have no idea what @Mike Peel: has done but so far it is not right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Checking this, it looks like you found the solution [3] - the category needs to be in Category:Featured pictures by creator and similar to be picked up by the bot. You do now appear on the lists. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)