Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

< Commons talk:Valued image candidates
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

VICbot failing againEdit

I see the bot has failed to process several of the closed VI nominations again. Does anyone have any idea:

  1. what it is in those nomination pages that is upsetting the bot?
  2. how to get the bot fixed?

-- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've cleared all the missed closed niminations by hand. It would be very interesting (and time saving) to know though what it was about those nominations that caused the bot to ignore them! -- DeFacto (talk). 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I got up early to close the abnormal VIs, but you already did, we could have shared this chore. This problem has existed for years and I have never found the fault. I think it's the side of the Bot that should be looked for but I have no skills for that. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No probs Archaeodontosaurus: you do it sometimes, I do it others. :o) I wish we could spot the trigger though, it must be something in the nomination pages somewhere - then we could, at least, work around the bug without necessarily changing the bot. Also, some nominators seem to be more often affected by this than others - what are they doing differently? -- DeFacto (talk). 08:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
For this morning I had a breakdown. My appointments did not appear in my chat box. Of the 3 nominated the first two did not pose a problem the last did not pass: I closed manually. I spent a moment trying to understand but I did not find anything particular. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm always willing to help. I would be happy helping out with the chores if I knew the process. I learned how to substitute for the QIC bot when it failed but I don't know the process for VIC's -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've found a clue to a problemEdit

@Archaeodontosaurus: on 3 Dec I closed two similar nominations by PhilipTerryGraham: Commons:Valued image candidates/Promenade entrance to Milsons Point ferry wharf, November 2017.jpg and Commons:Valued image candidates/MV Pemulwuy at Misons Point, November 2016 (4).jpg. However, as is usually the case for this user's nominations, VICbot failed to process these two promoted files.

So I examined these two files and found that their formatting was different from normal - the whitespace was different and the files looked tidier than usual. So I reformatted just one of the files to make it look more like the files we usually see. The next time VICbot ran it processed that one file successfully, but still failed on the other. So I would like to ask PhilipTerryGraham how he creates his nomination pages, and suggest that, perhaps, he uses the form at Commons:Valued image candidates#Adding a new nomination (image). -- DeFacto (talk). 07:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Going through the autogenerated page has been the only way I've added new nominations. It seems the problem here instead was really by obsession with proper syntax formatting in every template. Evidently when I do it with {{VIC}} and {{VIC-thumb}} it breaks VICbot, as what seems to be the case with your experiments. I'll stick with the default syntax formats of the template, but ideally VICbot should be able to read parameters regardless of syntax spacing... PhilipTerryGraham (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Alas we do not have an ideal Bot, but a mysterious Bot  . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
That workaround of removing the user-introduced whitespace from the nomination page worked again here, so without the skills to fix the bot, perhaps we should add a warning in the instructions not to alter the spacing in the standard template. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
it seems fair to me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Files from Wiki Science Competition 2017Edit

Hi. Wiki Science Competition 2017 has started and we have already more than 3000 files to revise, we are doing our best. The workflow is pretty intense but we try to keep it on track, the plan will include a retropatrolling work on many uploaded files, also by some of the jurors later.

FYI here you can find some informal selection of the best images, if you want to candidate something. if you do so, I can try to improve the categorization of that specific image. Have a nice wiki!--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem in VIEdit

The VIbot is blocked for 2 days, I report the problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems of irregularityEdit

@DeFacto:; @Ikan Kekek:; @Spurzem: Coypus.jpg This image was closed before the deadline and it should have been undecided. For both reasons it must be returned to the contest after the promotion is erased.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

How do we do reverse the promotion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Archaeodontosaurus, can you explain your point further please as I cannot see the timing problems you mention. This image was nominated at 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) and the last vote was at 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC). I closed it at 17:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC) which was 7 days and 4 hours after it was nominated and more than 2 days and 15 hours after the last vote. The rules say that it can be closed 7 days after nomination and 2 days after the last vote. Also it had 2 supports and 1 oppose which does give a "promoted" result. -- DeFacto (talk). 01:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • OK for the countdown of time. But Lothar's vote is invalidated by the change of scope. This image should be undecided. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with Ikan's comment in the review that the change in scope was very minor, and I think it was unlikely to change a vote. I'm sure we've overlooked similar slight and bureaucratic changes before. Shall we wait to hear if Lothar would have changed their vote because of it, or do we want the VI seal stripped from the file and the mistake explained to the nominator regardless? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I am convinced that everyone is honest, and that there is no cheating on any level. I think we should wait for Lothar's decision. This is not a big problem but we must be exemplary ... if we can.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Mein Englisch ist nicht gut. Wenn ich es aber recht verstehe, geht es darum, ob ich mein positives Votum aufrechterhalte, obwohl der Scope geändert wurde. Dazu sage ich: Ja. Der Scope ist für mich relativ unbedeutend. Mir kommt es darauf an, ob ich ein Bild für wertvoll erachte oder nicht. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The subject is closed, in good conditions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we can let the promotion stand. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Limit for nominations?Edit

Hallo, yesterday I saw that a single user nominated 25 (!) more or less successful photographs for Valued images at this one day. Now I ask myself whether this can be the sense of the project. For if others follow the example, we soon will have an inflation of pictures which is hardly to be mastered and it is of use to nobody. Is it not possible to limit the number of the nominations, for example, to five per day like QI? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally I treat only 3 images per person per day. The plethora of images often end up in the trash. The proposal to limit the number has often been asked; but our complex requirements also serve us as a firewall. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that because those who nominate very many images have to wait a very long time for them to be reviewed that they eventually slow down a bit. So the situation is self-policing. You can apply your own discipline, like Archaeodontosaurus, and only review a limited number per day. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Changing a valued imageEdit

Hello, I would like to change a valued image, but I don't know how to do it. Will anyone help me? Images are below:

Thanks, Tournasol7 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tournasol7: you need to create what is called a "most valued review" (see Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review for the steps). This offers two (or more) images side by side for reviewers to choose between, one of them may (as in the case you offer) already be a VI. You need first to create normal VIC subpages for any images that haven't been nominated before using the same form as for any new nomination (see Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure). If it still isn't clear, please don't hesitate to ask again here for more details. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tournasol7: It will be all the easier as I fully agree the new image is much better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but my English it's not good, so I withdraw... Tournasol7 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tournasol7, Archaeodontosaurus: I agree that the new one is better, so I've taken the liberty of opening a Most Valued Review here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
El Grafo, thank you! Tournasol7 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".