Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Derivative work vs. new file version

One important aspect of Creative Commons is that it is allowed to modify the work of others and publish it again with the hint that it is "a derivative work". I have done so with

• File:Placa. Parque La Marina II.JPG

My derivative work is:

• File:Placa._Parque_La_Marina_II-2.jpg

I used the tool derivativeFX for it. A few days ago I had a little controvery with another user. During FP candidature he uploaded a new version of File:Burg-Anholt-Ostfassade-2012.jpg without further notifying. To be clear: I was very satisfied with the edit but I am not sure under which circumstances to upload a new version of file or to create a derivative work. I've seen both practises here. My position (I am relatively new) is that at least during FP/QI candidature a new version of a file should only be uploaded after approval of the creator. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it is a gesture of common courtesy, regardless of whether it's being nominated for something or not. And FPC is a whole new animal: if there are outstanding votes, you can't even upload a new version over your own file. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "outstanding votes" (=votes left)? I think if during FP processes other users find minor issues (e.g. slight tilt) it's OK that the creator uploads a new version. I've often seen it on FP and QI. Major changes (colors, white balance, ...) especially with FP candidates should not be done during voting process. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess fixing minor issues is OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I miss some photos

I miss some photos in the list of quality images, for example File:Cunningham Special, 7200 cm³, Bj. 1924 (2008-06-28).JPG. Also the promotion is not announced on my disc. Who can help? Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This might be due to a screwed up bot run. When should the promotion have occurred? To fix move the nomination back from the archives onto the candidate page. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: the filesystem on the wikimedia labs cluster ran out of space a few days ago. There is not much I can do right now. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Dschwen, schönen Dank für Deine Antwort. Es geht um die Bilder File:2009-08-07 1167 Oldtimer-GP - Porsche 356 B.JPG, File:Cunningham Special, 7200 cm³, Bj. 1924 (2008-06-28).JPG und File:Bentley, 4500 cm³, Bj. 1928 (2007-06-16).JPG mit der Bewertung von heute Mittag, 17. Dezember 2012, 12:34 Uhr. Ich würde mich freuen, wenn Du das Problem im Auge behalten und es lösen könntest. So etwas Ähnliches gab es vor paar Wochen ja schon einmal. Viele Grüße und Dank für Deine Bemühungen im Voraus -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we've had a similar problem a while ago. This prompted me to migrate to bot to a new and supposedly more stable home. Unfortunately wikimedia labs also is not quite as mature as i hoped it to be. But a of of development and administration manpower is spent on labs. So I'm fairly confident that these types of hickups will disappear. --Dschwen (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I also miss some images which should have been promoted (I guess a lot of people will have the same problem). They appear on the subpage for recently promoted images but they actually don't have the QI seal. I realized the nominations were stuck, now the promotions haven't been done properly. --Kadellar (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

yes,yet again, a not run has failed.I started there write for qicbot2.0 today. It will be more fault tolerant (allowing for reruns when the bot got interrupted ) --Dschwen (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the nominations page, please undo if this was the wrong idea. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is basically the right idea. The current version of QICbot does not do a lot of checking to see if its edits are redundant (were already performed in a partial bot run). This is the main challenge for the new version. --Dschwen (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Images missing

Alert. There are a lot of images missing! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

See section above. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Lothar Spurzem's behaviour against me

Hi everybody.

On wednesday december 26, no less than 60 (sixty) pictures were nominated in the QIC page.

My own contribution was for 5 (five) of them.

Lothar Spurzem did not assess any picture, except 4 (four), among my 5 (five).

Moreover, he did not assess any other picture by any other user that day, nor the day before.

He declined three of them, and regarding the fourth, he did not decline but had an intimidating comment ("no a QI") in order to discourage any further support by another reviewer (a very well known coward way to do).

His reasons for decline are fancy, as immediately found by another user.

I guess it is a retaliation or a revenge vote, but I really don't know why.

I claim that this behaviour is obviously a direct personal attack against me (not my pictures, but my person), and I protest.

On his talk page he wrote to me: "You are very critical of other but obviously you do not like that you are critized".

I don't understand what he is speaking about, but I read that he writes "you", not "your pictures". By the way, even if justifications by me are not needed, I've checked my own vote ratio in QIC, it is almost 3 or 4  Support for 1  Oppose.

I did not especially oppose to his own pictures, in QIC (and even in FPC).

I'm not involved in any conflict with this user.

Every user disagreeing with my votes is as usual welcome for a debate, in the QIC page, or in my own talk page, of course.

I think this problem does not need a COM:AN/U report for the moment, but next time it will, with a request for a block, as I think it is a personal harassment against my person. This is a warning.

I just ask somebody here, maybe more mellow than I could be, please to explain him that this kind of stupid actions will have absolutely no results regarding... the improvement of his own contributions... !--Jebulon (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As there is no room to presume good faith in the thread below, I think that there is room here. I'd just assume that Lothar didn't like your row of pictures and reviewed them IMHO a bit hard. Actually for this sake we have the CR section and things get balanced. The outcome of the nominations in CR should have 2 directions: pictures supported by the majority get promoted and reviewers not aligned withe the majority learn out of it. That's the way I see things, but maybe Lothar'd like to express his opinion, as well. Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You seriously think that there is "room to presume good faith" here ? I strongly disagree. I repeat: only my pictures were assessed among 60, they all are different, the reasons are different, but always for a decline, and I have to assume good faith ? And there is nothing personal here ? Are you kidding ? No way for me to stay here anymore in this case.--Jebulon (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There were 4 declined pictures, I think in order to assume harassment we must have a long-term pattern of systematic disruptive voting in your candidacies. And, as Poco already stated, in a CR things get balanced, since different opinions may be expressed there. So, for me, it's not that tragic for the moment (I had similar problem with an other user some weeks ago, but in CR the result was OK then.) --A.Savin 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Misunderstanding! I do not care with the results. I know that CR will make all right. And if I thought about a long term harassment, the question will not be here, but in COM:AN/U, of course ! This is here only a warning.--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. For I did not think that my criticizing some photos could hurt so strong. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. No more problem.--Jebulon (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Muppet show at Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Neptunbrunnen_Nürnberg_Putto_3.JPG

Would be nice if some skilled QIC participants had a look at there. It's already a second nomination of the same image, whether it's a QI is at least controversal, but some (mainly German-language) users presumably try to canvass some colleagues (don't really know if in IRC, RL or sth. else). For my part, I'm counting now at least 4 support "votes" by accounts never or hardly ever having been seen at QIC previously. On my ironic remark on that fact, one of the accounts skipped directly to personal attacks. Imho, that's not anymore funny. Thanks for attention --A.Savin 14:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. I'll take a look at the image and !vote my conscience. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for me it's very well a PA because the user alleges me to treat COM:QIC as my private party, which is a wrong and libelous assumption. --A.Savin 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a shame. As I wrote in the nomination template, User:Ailura someone is trying to ruin what could be an auspicious start at QIC... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm also one of the muppets? See the vote of Mattbuck, i also see only the picture. --Ralf Roleček 15:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that they refer to the users than so far almost never or never participated in QIC and suddenly joined this one CR. There is no room here to presume good faith. Poco a poco (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Quite right. I was informed in the CR page that Ailura was against this nomination. Because I don't see any evidence of such opposition in Commons, I presume that some talk went on behind the scenes between the German speeking users supporting it. That is technically canvassing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• The so called "personal attacks" are the same as the words A. Savin used about my person. This means, he supports usage of these phrases and uses them, so they are polite and cannot bother anyone. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Meet our Users

I am proposing to retire Commons:Meet our photographers and Commons:Meet our illustrators and make a unified Commons:Meet our Users instead. See the proposal at the Village pump. --Slaunger (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

After reflecting on some of the feedback I have gotten. I have redacted my proposal. --Slaunger (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Closure delay

Is there anything wrong with the closure procedure and QIC bot? No promotion/archiving action (that I see) for some days. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After Taxiarchos pointed out that the bot didn't finalize its work on Dec 29th and stopped since then, Dschwen's statement on the 31st was:

SH*T once more! The instance on Labs where the bot is running is gone. I cannot login. Such a damned dreck. Only troubles! --Dschwen (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) [1]

Poco a poco (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, that was not citeworthy material ;-). I just logged into a different instance and started the bot manually. I cannot add it to the crontab, because if the other instance comes back up it will run twice (possible at the same time, screwing things up big time). I have to add some code to avoid this. --Dschwen (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. I had the feeling it was very descriptive of the situation :) Thanks once more for your help Poco a poco (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved the bot to a supposedly more stable instance (from bots-3 to bots-nr1). Let's see how long that promise of stability holds up this time... --Dschwen (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Guide to improve the quality of our pictures

Hello, I have learned a lot in this place and I want to thank you all for that. Since there is a lot of know-how in this community about how to improve the quality of a picture (before, during and after taking it) I wonder if it makes sense that we document what we know. I believe, that this would help to a lot of us and above all those still to come. I have started a very inicial draft (mostly bullet points yet) and before I put more energy there I was wondering whether there is already something like this somewhere, if somebody would like to help me and what do you think about this initiave overall. My best wishes to everybody for the New Year. Poco a poco (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I see not a significant difference between this existing guidelines Commons:Image guidelines and your attempt. Maybe I have lost the point? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The existing guide tells you what is a QI, my proposal is to describe how to get there, i.e. how to produce quality Poco a poco (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's already something like this: de:WP:Fototipps in German language. Maybe an English translation for Commons would be helpful. --A.Savin 19:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link!, I didn't know it. I will "migrate" it to Commons. Poco a poco (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there are some good basic principles, but I wouldn't adopt it 1:1. I have some ideas but I don't know if I have enough time to get involved in this development. But I'll try. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gone through it yet but I agree that there are information that we don't have to take over and others missing. Thanks for your predisposition! Will start right now to work on it. Poco a poco (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am on it -btw Taxiarchos, I added your section, see 2.2- but it will keep me busy a few days until a first good draft is available: Help:Improve the quality of your pictures --Poco a poco (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a pity that it was deleted. This could be a chance to create s.th. new instead of translating s.th. old. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As you suggested and I agreed, I am not just translating from the original page of de.wp. Actually, if you compare the original document and what I have already translated, you'll not find much in common. I am rather using it as insipiration and I am focusing on the problems I have been seeing in QIC. Therefore, you are more than welcome to edit this page directly with room to add / delete whatever you want without having to be loyal to the original version. I believe that we have gathered enough review experience here in Commons to create a document based on that, and you are one of the most experienced around here. Poco a poco (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted

Two points:

• We need more user that take care of this QI subpage. All elected QI-pictures have to be assorted into default categories. Best think to do this bit boring work is with the tool which you can start on this page. At present the work there stumbles a little bit. So my appeal to take care on this side. Take it on your observation list so you'll remember.

• Just a precautionary remark because I know the combativeness of Biopics. I am against such warnings because they are counterproductive and arrogant. It is to be sure that every user should only do or write thinks that he is well versed in. This main principle applies on each side of Commons. But there is no problem if s.o. makes a misstake so we don't need to make such scaring warnings. As I have mentioned above we need more collaborators and Biopics warning is for sure not the right way to win new users to participate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I used to add categories on this page, but I think adding "Human made structure" to all such images is completely useless, so I stopped adding these. We need more precise categories, like VI have. Yann (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• As long as we don't have a better one we have to sort it into this structure. But I also think that this category system should be reworked. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, we have a better one: the categories used for valued images seem fine to me. We just need the will to implent the change. Yann (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just categorized the open pictures and will do it from time to time, Poco a poco (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Geo browser for geolocated photos from Commons?

Geolocation had become an important criterion for quality images. Is there a geo-browser with similiar functionality like Google Maps for end-users? It would be great to walk through a map where geolocated images from Commons are shown at the appropriate position on the map. Perfectly with filter functions for QI and FP. It would be very helpful for article illustration in WP. I know that there are some Geo-APIs but I have not found an interface for end-users. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, yes, there is, the meta:WikiMiniAtlas for example. It prioritizes FP and QI images on the map. --Dschwen (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct link to fullscreen view: http://toolserver.org/~dschwen/wma/iframe.html?0_0_0_0_commons_2_en_0_0&globe=Earth

Otherwise there is a blue globe you can click next to the coordinates on the image page of every geocoded image. --Dschwen (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, cool you are the programmer of the tool, great work. I've already found the tool previously to my post. For me desired use it misses at least this important functions:

• Names of towns and countries are not visible at any zoom level, s. for example File:Wikiminatlas-screenshot.jpg and would be very helpful for orientation. Can I active the name layer of the map?
  • Ah, the activction of English labels was partly a solutions. But street names (and some smaller towns) are still not visible. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Search function, at least town names or coordinates.

The "blue globe" shows me the location on the map of a single image. This is clear (and I've already known) it. The function I am loooking for is a browsing throug a map of geolocated images (like your WikiMiniAtlas). --Tuxyso (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, there is no such concept as layer of town names, only layer of Wikipedia articles. I guess it would be possible to enable both, but I don't know how not to make this a cluttered mess. At high zoom levels, when the images get sparse it would look nice, for sure. Let me think about this a bit. In the meantime I guess we could add a link to the fullscreen WMA to the COM:GEO page. Or anywhere it is likely to be found. --Dschwen (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea to add your tool to a more prominent place. A zoom function could work this way that firstly the very large towns are visible, and with increasing zoom level the smaller ones become visible.

What do you think about a search function? A function like "goto coordinate xyz" could be very useful and more easily to implement than the town names. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

QICBot striking

Hello, I have undo the edit of QICBot from early today because the QIC page was cleaned but the images were not handled accordingly and nobody got any notification. Unfortunately an "undo" edit didn't help so I had to do it by hand with several edits. Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And again, I point you to the bot logs http://bots.wmflabs.org/~dschwen/qicbot/Mon_Jan_28_06:17:06_UTC_2013.txt which show that the Wikimedia API server was not responding for several hours. So while you probably do not care, it was not the bot that was on strike, it was the Wikimedia API. Bots have feelings, too, you know... --Dschwen (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. I should have titled in a different way. Please, forward my appologies to your metalic friend. As I saw that it carried out its work at approx 10:00 am I reacted shortly afterwards and reverted myself. Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC) PD: How long should we wait before reacting? 5 hours? 12 hours? 1 day?

Good question. I would suggest you look at the bot logs. If there is an Error that indicates that the bot has failed you can act (and any help is certainly appreciated). If you do not see a hard error I would suggest waiting. I have instructed my metallic friend to keep trying if the API is non-responsive. It could well take a few hours until the bot finally succeeds. --Dschwen (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I created a bookmark to the folder with QICBot's log files. Thanks! Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

SORT OUT THE BACKLOG

Feb 23 has over SIXTY unreviewed images! If you nominate, review! -mattbuck (Talk) 17:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've no own pictures to be nominated for the moment, but I'll help--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I always review more pictures than I nominate (with expection of my first 3 months here), but this is obiously not the rule. There are a few users who nominate a lot but never review, so if their pictures don't get review then they will not bother, I guess. Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

to tell the truth I feel often shy to review but I promise to do more--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Limits of candidates?

If I remember well there was a voluntary self limitation of QIC per day at about five or six, wasn't it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It was...--Jebulon (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere I've already wrote that the problem are too few reviewers, rather than too many nominations. With that said, if someone wanted to nominate 20 carefully chosen images at once and to carefully review 30 others the same day, it's fine with me; on the other hand, nominating five images and not even reviewing a single one, is not OK (and yes, some days I do the same... but some days I also review more nominations than nominating myself). --A.Savin 20:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I concur with A.Savin.

5 nominations per day is a figure some people, like Jebulon, seem to feel comfortable with. Yesterday I nominated 10 and reviewed 15. My contribution is therefore positive for the QIC dynamic. Actually, I would encourage those with more dedication/time to nominate as many as possible, as long as they dedicate the same effort as reviewer... Poco a poco (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that nominating and reviewing is not the same. A reviewer needs mutch more competence!? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk)

Of course, I understand that some users are "ramping up" in terms of experience and don't feel comfortable reviewing others work (as I did during my first 3 months / QIs here), but for that case I have more than understanding Poco a poco ([[User talk:|talk]]) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We already wrote "if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates". In case of not so experienced users, they should only nominate very few images (one, two), so in time they get to know the QIC page better and learn how to review others' pictures properly. I think that's what I did myself. Experienced users should review as much as they nominate. In case of flooding without reviewing to others ever, maybe we should not review those images. By the way, thanks to Mattbuck, who takes care of the nominations which are about to disappear and that's a great work. --Kadellar (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of new users not feeling comfortable reviewing: I'm not concerned about them, because chances are they don't nominate many QICs anyways. (If they do, then we have a problem here. If you don't feel your abilities are good enough to review, you shouldn't be flooding the candidate list. Actually, you probably shouldn't be doing that anyways, but even more so now.) So I say, if you nominate 20 images each week, you had better review a similar amount (or more). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Poco a poco: I remind very good how you limited yourself not to put more than 5-6 per day (which is quite enough) (see: [[2]]) and now you returned to 10 or more per day. Reviewing other pictures as an equivalent is good but does not solve the problem that 10 picture per day of a single user too much. Particularity because the general participation is on a low level at this time. As long as the recently promoted are growing each day without a significant collaboration the QIC start to get more or less to a one-man-show. How exciting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't view that as a problem. My main concern is that many candidates go unreviewed, and this does not worsen the condition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The small interest is IMO the result of the described situation. Therefore here are so many unreviewed pictures. The diversity is not given any more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree.--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wladislaw: I said the following:

I agree with you, too many QICs, what concerns to me, I went down from aprox. 10-12 to 5-6 for some days. And I do always review more pictures than I nominate, independently of how many I propose Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I described a temporary situation. Never affirmed that it would stay like that. Now I came back to 10 (not 10 or more, as you suggested). And I repeat myself, I review more than I nominate. If I'd just nominate 1 maybe I'd review 2, which results in a balance of +1. Right now my balance to the equation here is usually +5. If I wouldn't participate in this page the balance would be 0.

On the other side, right now we have hardly unreviewed pictures at the end of the day. That is because of Mattbuck, who right now also nominates a bunch (8 per day) but reviews maybe 15-20 average. His balance is the best around here. That matters. Cannot share the "one-man-show" statement either.

You touched a different topic: recently promoted. I have been contributing there in the last weeks, but maybe not with the needed intensity. I promise to do more.

I will tell you something. I have observed that the bar is for me higher than for other nominatores. I came to the conclusion that due to the fact that I've nominated a lot of pictures (less than you, though) the quality level expected for them is higher than the level for somebody who is more or less new here. And I don't know if this is really fair. What counts here is that we provide good quality pictures to the project, the more, the better, and today more pictures get promoted than maybe one year ago. And that is a good thing.

If you convince me that I should nominate less pictures or the majority of users here would feel more comfortable about that, I will adjust, but right now I don't see a benefit for that for Commons Poco a poco (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see things, QIC needs a change, and I do not mean the number of nominations but cumbersome way to evaluate them. If a nomination ceases to be evaluated, the denominator is always the chance to nominate it. I would not limit the amount of nominations, however, look for easy evaluation mechanisms (could be the creation of an extension in javascript to do so). Limit the number of nominations I think a way to discourage them without,however, a better presentation of the nominations and tools to review, is the way. --The Photographer (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I should say here that I have been nominating 6 images a day for the past week or so and not reviewing any. However, I am usually the person who picks up all the images that no one else reviews, which means double or even triple digits in a single day. I'm just busy recently. Oh yeah, and the bot is broken... -mattbuck (Talk) 09:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

We all have a personal vision of how the QI page should worked, but all in all, it goes pretty well (when the bot isn't broken :) The amount of unreviewed images is somehow high nowadays but all nominated images can't be QI. If no one reviews a picture, it could be from the lack of its appealing, not good enough or not bad enough, just average. IMO, it would become a problem when a very good picture would stay in a blue frame. --Selbymay (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of: the bot was "broken" again. Only like most of the times it is not the bot that was broken, but the hosting. The maintainers of the bots project at wikimedia labs (which are kind enough to donate their time to administer this service) deleted the virtual machine my bot was running on. Simple mistake as they did not see my bot being active at the time they looked. I just started a run manually and have just migrated the bot to a new machine (which, as they assured me, this time will be really stable.... ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

So are we talking blamanche stable, house of cards stable or something else? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say House of Cards stable. --Dschwen (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

...and it would be good if more people take a look at Recently_promoted --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not as long as trigger-happy admins block you for trying to help.  B.p. 18:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Undo of QIC last archive

Hi, since QICbot archived the due nominations but didn't let the nominators know I just undo the edit in the archive and moved everything back (in one block under March 27th section) with the hope that in tonight's run it works. Last QICBot log said:

HTTPError: 504 Gateway Time-out

WARNING: Could not open http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php.

Maybe the server is down. Retrying in 30 minutes...

Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

PHP error

After this edit I received the error message:

Warning: include_once(/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/E3Experiments/E3Experiments.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/maintenance/mergeMessageFileList.php on line 101 Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/E3Experiments/E3Experiments.php' for inclusion (include_path='/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/TimedMediaHandler/handlers/OggHandler/PEAR/File_Ogg:/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/share/php') in /home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/maintenance/mergeMessageFileList.php on line 101 Warning: include_once(/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/LastModified/LastModified.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/maintenance/mergeMessageFileList.php on line 101 Warning: include_once(): Failed opening '/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/LastModified/LastModified.php' for inclusion (include_path='/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/extensions/TimedMediaHandler/handlers/OggHandler/PEAR/File_Ogg:/home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/share/php') in /home/wikipedia/common/php-1.22wmf1/maintenance/mergeMessageFileList.php on line 101

Rybec (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

CR fixed

It seems that about a week ago, a user nominated an image directly to consensual and so doing managed to break QICbot. I think I have now fixed this. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I miss a photo

Hello - I'm missing my candidate photo "Altes_Rathaus_München_-_Festsaal_003.jpg". Can somenone tell me, where it is? It was promoted, the last I've seen. Best regards --Mummelgrummel 19:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please link your signature. --Leyo 19:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In case of objections, images come to Consensual review, the yours is there: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Altes_Rathaus_München_-_Festsaal_003.jpg. --A.Savin 20:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

O.K. - Thank you very much for the information. --Mummelgrummel 04:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Promoted QI, but not QI seel

Hi! According to my discussion page the file File:Borner-See-2013-04.jpg was promoted, but got no QI seel (quality image template). Has anyone an idea what went wrong? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please look at previous discussions. I explained how to look at the bot logs. --Dschwen (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have an overview of what happened, let me summarize it:

• Everything started with this edit from user Biopics (affecting all nominations but those from April 21st for whatever reason)
• The bot had problems with all nominations without the "File:" prefix and only added the QI template to those from April 21st (e.g. Linie_68_Schwedenbruecke_1.JPG)
• A.Savin recognized the problem and gently completed the job of QICbot adding the template to the missing files (e.g.)
• I noticed today the problem (couldn't use the QICVoter due to the missing "File:" preffix) and contacted Biopics.
• He explained the reasons for the change but I guess that we will still have the problem in the coming days. Any ideas?

Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the QIVoter (purge cache). Will work on the bot next. Being bold is all fine, but I've requested so many times here to be notified before any large changes are applied to the QIC page. This action by Biopics just created unnecessary work and bot/script downtime for numerous people. It would have been so easy to first announce the upcoming change, give me time to adapt the software, and then enact it without any service interruptions. --Dschwen (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination QI review tool

We need a javascript tool to review the nomination in same nomination section and not edit all the section. We need a what you see is what you get directly over the nomination section. It is very irritating find a nomination to review in the nominations ocean to get "Edit conflict". I think that if a tool is developed, the review request will be faster and the review process will be amused for new users and for us. The main reason that large numbers of nominations will remain unanswered, it is because there is a good tool nomination, but there is not a tool for review. Some idea? --The Photographer (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we do have a crappy review tool. Click on the Click here to activate QIVoter helper! bar and you will get previews of the image in the nomination your cursor is currently on. You can fetch the 100% view of the image and promote or decline with a mouse click. I agree that a WYSIWYG interface without jumping to edit mode would be nice, but the probability to get an edit conflict would still be there. --Dschwen (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a subseccion for each nomination to prevent edit conflict --The Photographer (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That would make the page unusable (at least without on the fly reformatting using a clever script). --Dschwen (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem 2013

Again, the bot seems not to be working properly. How can this problem be fixed? KimChung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.62.230 (talk • contribs)

Now let's hope that the problem was in the data transfer of Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Man made structures. My dear colleagues on COM:QIC/Candidate list I'd really thank for not editing that page after a failed bot run before undoing the latter. Restoring lost QI nominations after dozens of new edits have been done in the meantime, is an imposition. --A.Savin 10:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

How can i check a bot failure before editing? I'm not 24/7 QIC-aware. -- Smial (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's useful to check Special:Contributions/QICbot. Nominations extracted but neither the files tagged nor the users notified = something wrong with the bot and the files should get back to QIC asap. --A.Savin 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Also check the latest log files at http://bots.wmflabs.org/~dschwen/qicbot . They list an error message if the bot work was interrupted. --Dschwen (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Current nominations

As we know, there's a toolserver collapse and so the nominations of the last day have not been processed. Lots of new nominations, on the other hand, are still being added daily, so that someday we could get the problem that the bot (as soon as it comes back) will fail to archive the page due to its oversize (as recently happened on Man made structures).

So, I'd kindly request especially our most active nominators, to consider to stop adding new noms for now, before the collapse is managed, which hopefully will come very soon now. On the other hand, there are many pictures still waiting for a review, so the server collapse is probably our chance to finally clean the backlog on QIC, isn't it? Provided, of course, that we all slow down with new noms a bit. --A.Savin 12:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I've just moved the QIC bot (yet again) to a now project on Wikimedia Labs. However during a testrun (still ongoing) it turned out that the Wikimedia API servers are not responding very well. This causes the bot to stall and retry. --Dschwen (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the cause: the monuments and statues page has grown too large. --Dschwen (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it was not that page. Still investigating. --Dschwen (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoring candidates removed by the bot

On the diff page of the bot edit on candidates_list in the chrome dev tools console type:

t="";$('td.diff-deletedline>div').each(function(i,e){t+=$(e).text()+'\n'}); t

This returns the plain wikitext that the bot removed. Paste this back into the page (consensual reviews in their respective section). --Dschwen (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Problems in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted

Hi, I have spent some time cleaning up the recently promoted site. After the last problems with the toolserver and the re-start of work by QICbot, the paged got overfilled and the categorization tool didn't work anymore. I have deleted approx. 40% of the images which were duplicated and have done some categorizations per hand, but the QI categorization tool still doesn't work. So, maybe the problem was not the amount of images (my guess) but rather something else. Any ideas? Poco² 20:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does not work? It looks to me like the thumbnails don't display. --Dschwen (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Found that problem. The syntax for Special:FilePath has changed. --Dschwen (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

correction of a signature

Just to avoid the impression I would manipulate a signature in the candidate list: When adding four nominations today I accidentally changed a previously non-processed signature of '~~~~' to my own name (diff). I now corrected it manually (diff), according to the original edit (diff). --Tsui (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have javascript disabled for the QIC page? --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Javascript is generally enabled in my browser. The '~~~~' were transformed into a/my signature when I saved the page. So the problem is rather that they were not processed originally (see: diff). --Tsui (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Interesting. Looks like the script missed the last signature when Mattbuck saved his edit. I wonder how that could happen... --Dschwen (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen this problem a few times, Poco² 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Short of some kind of race condition I don't see how this simple loop could fail to replace all four-tildes in the input box. --Dschwen (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

var old_text;
do {
  old_text = QICSigs.form.wpTextbox1.value;
  QICSigs.form.wpTextbox1.value = old_text.replace( '~~~~', signature );
} while( old_text != QICSigs.form.wpTextbox1.value );

Nomination

Someone nominated one of my images for QI, but signed my name to the nomination. I've been unable to find the correct page history that would allow me to figure out who actually performed the nomination (as I wasn't notified until it was promoted). Any ideas? Powers (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image was nominated by User:Anna Anichkova. Problem: the promotion is irregular because the same user, User:Anna Anichkova, promoted it. --Myrabella (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How odd. How do I nominate it for delisting? Powers (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no formal delisting process. Since this was an irregular promotion I suggest removing the QI tag and removing the image from its QI gallery page. Then just renominate it. --Dschwen (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that Flowers QI page is enormous. I've removed the image from QI but I haven't renominated because I frankly don't think it's that good. It might be a VI for that specific cultivar of lilac, but I see a lot to quibble with on quality -- and I'm the photographer! Powers (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Notifications today

Hi all. During the bot run today an oversized discussion page from one of the users being notified of a promotion killed the bot. Unfortunately (since I haven't anticipated this to ever happen) I do not have debug output to track down the offender. But I will add a check to prevent further issues. This means that not every user received a notification. However all images were properly tagged. --Dschwen (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually it looks like the bot was only unable to notify one single user. --Dschwen (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

QICbot issue

Hello, It seems that QICbot has trouble at the moment. Today it extracted processed nominations and and moved categorized images from Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted , but it didn't tag the promoted images nor notified the users. Last action at 04:53 UTC. The previous day it worked was 8 August, see QICbot contribs--Myrabella (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I already stated here that in such cases, the edit by QICbot should be undone asap. I've reverted now, but it was (as always...) too late, as several conflicting edits were done in the meantime. I would be grateful if someone restored them too, sadly I've no good internet at the moment. --A.Savin 09:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

QICbot is currently stalled. Latest action at 04:53 UTC, August 11, see QICbot contribs. I have asked Dschwen for help. --Myrabella (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dschwen was at the Wikimania in Hongkong. --Ralf Roleček 06:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Another bot problem?

...Does somebody knows where my four August 18th nominations are hidden now ? In the way to be promotted, they disappear suddenly...--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures are back, all is good. No more problem.--Jebulon (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

yeah bot is running slow. I got API errors, rewrote the bot to use the next gen pywikipedia framework, got more errors, went back to the old code for now. Under these conditions I pretty much have to babysit each run. --Dschwen (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Dschwen, I'm sure we all are very grateful for your great work here, don't worry, and many many thanks, again.--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/SamoaBot 4

There is an ongoing discussion about a bot that would merge multiple {{Assessments}}-like templates into single ones on file description pages; I was asked to notify this project about that, so you are invited to comment there. Thanks, --Ricordisamoa 07:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exposure, contrast etc.

We have often controverse discussion about overexposure, too dark images or images with too high contrast. I believe it would be useful if we would add a link to this help page to the top of the candidate page, so everyone has a simple way to make a rough check of his computer display settings before judging QI candidates. -- Smial (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment Obviously a problem with the light. A photograph should have a consistent light level intensity, this is achieved by avoiding strong sunshine. It is advisable to take pictures in the evening or in the morning. Additionally, not everyone will evaluate an image with equal intensity, for example, this photograph for my not even be QI, however, has gotten many votes in FPC --The Photographer (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

We have COM:IG (improvable, of course), and I think it is not a good thing to import guidelines from any wikipedia...--Jebulon (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, I had forgotten this part of this page. grmpf. -- Smial (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

QICbot is taking a short vacation

And by bot I mean me. It will run again on Sunday (MST). See you then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

In de.wikipedia endet der Wikicup am 28., es wäre schön, wenn der Bot regelmäßig laufen würde... und wir unsere Punkte für QI gutschreiben könnten... Ich mein ja nur.. ;) --Ralf Roleček 23:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ja ja, bin ja schon wieder da :-). --Dschwen (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominations from 25. September 2013

I miss the nominations from yesterday, 25th September 2013. My photo of Ferrari 308 for example is not to be seen. -- 80.144.249.3 14:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Tried to repair, please review if something went wrong. -- Smial (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yesterday's botrun attempts were pretty catastrophic. I got nothing but error messages from the Wikimedia servers. I have now switched to the next generation rewrite of pywikibot (and adapted the qicbot code). --Dschwen (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The erroneous edit was this one. Maybe an accident, maybe a server error. I don't know. -- Smial (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not including vote templates prior to CR

An issue with CR is how to treat comments made before the CR for the purpose of vote-counting. For example, Person A might nominate an image, Person B might promote it, and then Person C might put it in CR with an objection. When other people come in to vote in the CR, they will use  Support or  Oppose to be counted in the tally, but in the most likely scenario that B and C did not include such votes, how should we handle it? Obviously, if B and C would add votes themselves, there's no need to worry about this, but sometimes people just go missing or don't check on QIC often enough. My opinion is that B should be counted as a support if originally promoting and an oppose if originally declining (and that such votes may be added by whoever is maintaining the tally). After all, I can't imagine why anyone would want to promote an image if they wouldn't also support it in CR or vice versa. As for C, there is a difference between "I think the composition is horrendous" and "there are a few dust spots, please fix." However, trying to read into what people are saying is probably infeasible (is "too dark" an solid oppose? or they'd change to support if the image were brightened? etc.), so I'd say don't count it as a vote unless they explicitly mark the vote themselves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I handle it as follows:

• A promotion (decline) implies a support (oppose) vote in case of CR.
• A comment on any candidate without changing the template from "Nomination" to "Promotion", "Decline", or "Discuss", means neither a support nor an oppose vote.
• Putting an image that is about to be promoted (declined) to CR means an oppose (support) vote in CR; except (of course) for putting a declined own nomination to CR.

Same pattern I use for other nominations when closing CR sections. --A.Savin 11:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Zoom viewrer

Why some images are not opened in zoom viewer? Eg: File:Burrito (Sedum morganianum), jardín botánico de Tallinn, Estonia, 2012-08-13, DD 01.JPG Is it a problem in my side, a temporary issue or else? ( I can see some charecters are replaced like this on execution: "Burrito_(Sedum_morganianum),_jardín_botánico_de_Tallinn,_Estonia,_2012-08-13,_DD_01.JPG". --Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• And some images like this open only in "flash" mode in Firefox only (not in Chrome). -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

When I saw your message I didn't even know that there is a tool called ZoomViewer. I have now found it in the preferences and tried it out. It works fine but I can confirm that I have the same problems like you with those 2 pictures. Regards, Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the ZoomViewer is my project. Its main problem is the limited capacity of the toolserver which causes conversion processes to fail frequently. I'm working on migrating this tool to Wikimedia Labs, which should improve things quite a bit "soon" (timescale of 1-2 months). --Dschwen (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. -- Jkadavoor (Jee) (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just read my "soon" comment. Well, it is taking a lot longer. I recently filed a bug report for labs to get fastcgi support. It looks like this is now supported. I'll try and move the viewer over "soon"... --Dschwen (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)