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.

Valued images and thumbnail size [Unarchived thread]Edit

In this thread, a side discussion of thumbnail size is taking place. I'm sure Colin wouldn't mind if I quote him:

"On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of 'thumbnail' size is obsolete."

If "thumbnail size" is already obsolete, how should we be judging value, or should we even continue with the Valued Images project and designation? Should we simply be looking for the clearest file with the highest resolution (especially FPs and QIs) and totally ignoring how photos look as thumbnails? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thumbnails are generated automatically. The problem can be discussed but not in VI. An image can not be judged on a thumbnail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
How do you judge which image is most useful, keeping in mind that when people read Wikipedia articles, they generally aren't seeing the file at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section Preferences you go to appearance and you can set the display to a thumbnail of 400px by default. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not very familiar with the VI critiera. I assume you are referring to "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). " I'm a bit puzzled by this since the VIC template code is set to "portrait=120|panorama=277|160" and so produces really tiny thumbs on the candidate page. These are much much smaller than the 480x360 size mentioned in the criteria. If Ikan you have only been looking at these tiny 120px portrait thumbs when judging for quality, then that doesn't sound like you are judging at the right size, which would be 3x larger at least. Archaeodontosaurus, it doesn't appear that the preferences affect the the thumbnail size for VI candidates, as the values are hard-coded. Should the candidate page be revised to use larger thumbs? I would suggest it does. I also note that this critiera is merely a minimum quality threshold and the "valued image" still requires it to be the best image on Commons for the subject, which will almost certainly require looking at it in a larger size when comparing to others. Also, Ikan, you seem to be judging VI based on how the image looks on Wikipedia articles in a standard thumb. I would suggest that that is a narrow view of VI, which is not a Wikipedia project. My guess is that the minimum size threshold has been arived at what would be suitable for general online use (which includes wikipedia, blogs, newspapers, etc) rather than high-quality printing such as for books and magazines.
I understand that my Wikipedia thumbnail defaults (300px) are higher than the default which is 220px [my Commons thumbnail is 400px but that is often quite large for Wikipedia articles], though using a high DPI screen doubles all those values. The MediaWiki software is among the best at handling a high DPI screen but is not alone in considering this when deciding what sized image to use when rendering a page. Generally a high DPI screen requires 1.5 or 2x the image size to render the page layout the same as for a standard DPI screen.
The fact that the criteria size is called "a standard 4:3 landscape image" suggests these requirements were defined many moons ago when that was what compact cameras produced and TVs were shaped. Perhaps a 600x400 / 400x600 size would be more appopriate for now and immediate future? -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually look at all VI candidates at full screen on my laptop as well as thumbnail size, but I do try to keep in mind what they're likely to look like on a Wikipedia page. But if I judged all candidates by how they look at full screen, then smaller files would inevitably be at a much greater disadvantage than they are now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment that a higher resolution file may not actually have more detail than a somewhat smaller one (due to softness, noise, etc) then surely when comparing to see if a candidate is the best on Commons for that topic, then the smaller file is rightly at a disadvantage. It has less detail so has less educational information. However, other aspects such as lighting, position, crop, etc, may be positives for a smaller image where one decides it is the better image. I don't think you should compare two images at thumbnail size. The requirement is only that it "looks good at review size 480x360" to judge whether it is acceptable at all.
Ping User:Slaunger wrt to the issue where the candidate list has tiny thumbs. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image) refers to the review page of a single nomination, not the smaller images on the candidate list. Each candidate has a link to the review page on that list right below the image. Template:VIC has {{#switch:{{{orientation|landscape}}}|portrait=360|panorama=830|480}}, so it defaults to 480px wide. Template:VIC-thumb has the smaller dimensions you mention above, but it is only used when the review page is included in the candidates list. We might want to clarify that sentence a bit, explixitely referring to the review page and the candidates list …
I'm not opposed to increasing the default review size a bit, as long as it stays reasonable. For reference, it seems you need about 1200 × 1800 px (= 2.16 Mpx) to make a classic standard 4×6-inch-sized print at 300 DPI [1]. That should be sufficient for most educational on- and offline needs (OK, you'll need an inch more in width if you'd want to use it as a double-column image in Nature: [2]). That would probably not fit into the review page on smaller devices, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks El Grafo for the clarification. Glad that the thumbs on the candidate page are not regarded as the "review size" thumbs. Perhaps the sizes could be increased a little to 400 for portrait width, 600 for landscape width and 900 for panorama width. I think I'm happy with VI's online-usage emphasis (if I'm reading this correctly) since pixel-peeping high-resolution photos seems to cause QI to reject many perfectly good and usable images. As long as VI is selecting the best we have on Commons, at a size that is at least usable online, then anything more (such as great quality for print) is a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Colin, Ikan Kekek, El Grafo: You are indeed supposed to review a VIC at nomination file page resolution, not in the overview thumbnail size, nor at full resolution. The idea being that typically in a wikipedia project article for online use the mage would not be larger than stated in the current guideline. The idea also being that if you have, e.g., a mobile phone camera which typically has a lot of pixel-noise and an excessively large pixel resolution, it would be OK at the review size as due to the downsampling the noise would be suppressed a lot giving an acceptable quality assuming other aspects of the photographs (lightning, sharpness, illustrates subject well) were OK. That said, the current review size was established 9 years ago, and I would support stepping up the review size moderately to follow the normal progression in image resolutions. The dimensions Colin proposes are pretty good, although I think 480 pixel width for portraits, 640 pixel width for landscape and 1000 pixel width for panorama would be more suitable. It corresponds roughly from going from HVGA (320x480, 0.15 Mpixel) to VGA (480x640, 0.3 Mpixel) review resolution. We could also step up further to an SVGA (600x800, 0.5 Mpixel). This progression of review resolution roughly corresponds to how resolution has evolved naturally on displays over a time span of the VI project. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I've been looking at the thumbnail size on the file page, not the VIC page, and then I have also been looking at the full-page image on my laptop. I sometimes look at full size, but mostly if I'm considering whether the photo should be nominated at QIC or FPC or if it's simply enjoyable or interesting enough for me to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: Ok, you are of course free to look at at image at any size you want, but for the purpose of a reviewing an image for VI, you are supposed to follow the "Review it!" link on the thumbnial overview page as this will guide you to the VIC nomination subpage for the VIC under review, where it is displayed in the review resolution for VI. It is in this review resolution that it shall illustrate the scope better than any other image and comply with the other VI criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd been using the file page's thumbnail, not the "Review it!" link. Now that I've changed the thumbnail default size to 400px, the file page thumbnail size is sometimes a lot bigger than the "Review it!" thumbnail size, which doesn't seem to be responding to my change in preferences for default thumbnail size. So I think it's probably best for me to continue reviewing from the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

[unindent] - This thread was probably prematurely archived. We have twice in recent weeks had rather bitter threads on VIC in which those of us who are using 400px thumbnails to judge photos are being attacked as if we have just creating a nonsensical new rule out of thin air, when all we are doing is following the existing guidelines, as per Slaunger's remark above. You folks need to propose a new rule of what we are judging and how. My understanding is that the reason for using a thumbnail size to judge photos nominated at VIC is that they are being judged solely in terms of how they look as thumbnails in Wikipedia or other online articles, and on no other basis. You - and I'm particularly talking about you, Archaeodontosaurus - need to stop attacking others for upholding the existing rule, and instead, you need to propose a new standard that is based on something other than your ad hoc individual judgment, and which remains a clearly different standard from the ones on QIC and FPC, if VI is still to mean anything. Please go ahead and start a new thread for the proposed new rule, if you like. I'd be happy to consider it, but I will not engage in de facto nullification of the rule ad hoc, no matter how strongly you object in individual VIC nomination threads. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This point had never been problematic for years, it has appeared in recent months. It is in this sense that I find it inappropriate and artificial. The right size of the examination is the one that makes good judgment; Everyone should be free to examine the image at the size that he sees fit.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not what the rule says. If you don't like the rule and won't fix it, at least stop attacking people for applying it. Meanwhile, I'd encourage anyone else who is troubled by this recurring argument to propose a new rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, can you point us to the recent "rather bitter threads" please. DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see what the misunderstanding/dispute is and I don't see a need for a rule change. If a reviewer is happy that an image meets the 6 criteria, then the reviewer is free to use their own instincts to decide if the image is the best available in the given scope - it is inevitably a subjective decision. DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The dispute is that in spite of the existing rule, some users insist that it is perfectly OK to judge what photo is more useful on some basis other than judging the thumbnail size to review. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't read it as a rule in that way. We are free when reaching a subjective judgement to view the image as we choose. Disagreements can be resolved by discussion, consensus or balance of supports/opposes. DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What size are we supposed to understand the review size - the only size that "matters" - to be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The size of the "review size" seems perfectly clearly explained to me, and if the image doesn't look good on-screen at that size, then it should be opposed. However, if there is more than one image in the scope that does fulfil all the criteria, then the reviewer clearly needs to use some other criteria to arrive at a decision. DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree, if they look equally good at the thumbnail review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is:
'3. Must illustrate its subject well.'
Although the emphasis for a VI is on its value, it is still expected that the image is of a reasonable technical quality and standard. For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. The technical standard required should be achievable by any photographer who has taken care over the image. This means:
1. Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view
2. No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario)
3. The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered.
I propose the follwing new wording: changes are in bold italics

'3. Must illustrate its subject well.'
Although the emphasis for a VI is on its value, it is still expected that the image is of a reasonable technical quality and standard. For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. The technical standard required should be achievable by any photographer who has taken care over the image. This means:
1. Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view
2. No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario)
3. The image must look good on-screen on the Review Page (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Note: Click on the Review Page link under the VI cxandidate image.
4. Its usability in printed format is not considered.

Please note that there is no mention of the word thumbnail in these criteria Charles (talk)

I think you are misunderstanding (maybe because I'm using the wrong word) what I actually do, which is to look at the image's page. That's the thumbnail size I'm using. The "review page" often produces an image that's too small for me to really see, and smaller than what would be used on, say, a Wikipedia page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding. When I refer to thumbnail I refer to the image that appears on page [:] or on any article with a standard taxon box. Charles (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that's way too small to judge. I do not judge that size of thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Here we have the very type of the false problem. We have constructed an artificial polemic. Let us consciously judge each image with the guiding values that have been recommended but which should not be erected as dogma. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is a file rename note required somewhere?Edit

From time to time we get a red link appearing in thecCandidate list (we have one at the moment for "Commons:Valued image candidates/Balkan fritilliary (Boloria graeca balcanica) Bulgaria.jpg"). I think these are usually caused when the underlying image file has been moved (renamed) without the corresponding candidate review page ("Commons:Valued image candidates/xxx.jpg") being similarly moved (renamed). Should we perhaps add a note to the VI process somewhere to cover this eventuality? Something like this:

If you move (rename) an image file that is a VI candidate you must also move (rename) the corresponding candidate review page to match.

DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Was ist ein wertvolles Bild?Edit

Hallo miteinander,

unter einem „wertvollen“ Bild einer bedeutenden Person, eines Gegenstandes, einer Pflanze oder eines Ereignisses für Commons verstehe ich, dass es aussagekräftig ist, Seltenheitswert hat und nicht wiederholbar ist. Aus dieser Überlegung heraus stellte ich vor vier Jahren ein Foto des nach einer Havarie in Koblenz gesunkenen und quer im Rhein liegenden Schaufelraddampfers Mainz vor.

Als ich mich dieser Tage an die „Valued images“ erinnerte, dachte ich unter anderem an Fotos, die ich vor 41 Jahren während der Bauzeit des Kernkraftwerkes Mülheim-Kärlich machte. Ein vergleichbares gibt es meines Wissens in den Commons nicht. Ich habe das Bild inzwischen vorgestellt, erfülle aber offensichtlich nicht die offiziellen Kriterien für eine positive Bewertung.

Wenn ich es recht verstehe, musste ich eine möglichst eng gefasste Kategorie erstellen, damit das Bild als bestes „in scope“ gelten kann. Das genügt aber anscheinend nicht. Bemängelt wird nämlich, dass außer der KKW-Baustelle eine Kapelle zu sehen und damit eine weitere Kategorie erfasst ist. Mein Versuch zu erläutern, dass Kapelle und Baustelle zusammengehören, wurde wegen meines schlechten Englisch wahrscheinlich nicht verstanden; deshalb hier noch eine ergänzende Erklärung: Das Areal, auf dem das Kernkraftwerk steht, gehörte weitgehend der Kirchengemeinde, und eine der Bedingungen für den Erwerb war, dass die Kapelle stehen blieb. Der neue Eigentümer ging noch weiter und renovierte sie aufwendig, legte das Gelände rundum neu an und stellte das Kirchlein in seinen Werbebroschüren heraus.

Nach meiner Erfahrung mit dieser Bewerbung hat es anscheinend wenig Sinn, verhältnismäßig selten Fotografiertes oder zumindest in den Commons wenig Vorgestelltes auszuwählen und zu präsentieren. Erfolgversprechender für die Kennzeichnung als „Valued image“ ist es wahrscheinlich, irgendetwas Allgemeines auf die Bewertungskriterien ausgerichtet zu fotografieren, es in eine bisher noch nicht existierende Kategorie zu stellen und als bestes Foto in dieser (neuen) Kategorie zu deklarieren, egal, ob noch ähnliche Bilder vom selben Motiv hinterherkommen.

Ich frage mich nur, ob das Projekt ursprünglich so gedacht war.

Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Spurzem:, ich fang mal hinten an: Wenn ein neues, besseres Bild dazukommt kann und soll das freilich das bestehende VI ablösen. Inwiefern es überhaupt Sinn macht in Kategorien wie Pilea mollis ein VI zu krönen, sei mal dahingestellt (in dem Fall habe ich mich gegen eine Nominierung entschieden, fand ich irgendeiw albern). Eine der Hauptaufgaben von VI ist mMn eher das Gegenteil: von einem Objekt oder Typ von Objekten bei dem es zahlreiche Alternativen gibt (z.B. Category:Fagus sylvatica) das für Weiternutzer nützlichste markieren, so dass es schnell (z.B. mittels FastCCI) gefunden werden kann. Wenn ein Bild Seltenheitswert hat und nicht wiederholbar ist, kann das natürlich auch ein Grund sein, es als VI zu markieren, vorausgesetzt es zeigt etwas das tatsächlich von Interesse ist. Ein Bild das zeigt wie Michael Jackson damals sein Kind aus dem Fenster hat baumeln lassen wäre sicher gut geeignet, ein Bild das zeigt wie Bauer Horst mal den Ferrari seines Nachbarn fahren durfte wohl eher nicht (um es mal ganz überspitzt zu formulieren).
Mit dem scope ist das so eine Sache. Er soll ausdrücklich nicht eine detaillierte Beschreibung des Bildes sein, sondern eine Art Kategorie von Bildern definieren innehalb dieser das vorgeschlagene Bild das beste ist. Dabei gilt es abzuwägen zwischen "zu allgemein" und "zu spezifisch". "Musiker" ist sicherlich zu allgemein, "Kirk Hammet spielt einen E-Moll-Akkord auf einer Jackson Explorer auf Rock am Ring 2012" ist sicherlich viel zu spezifisch. Eine Faustregel die sich für mich bewährt hat (und sinngemäß auch in COM:VISC steht) ist, den scope so zu wählen dass er etwas beschreibt nach dem ein Artikelschreiber auf (z.B.) Wikipedia realistischerweise suchen würde. Ich versuche daher VI nicht als Auszeichnung für mich, sondern als Hilfestellung für Bildersuchende zu sehen und bin damit bisher recht gut gefahren. Wenn's hilft biete ich gerne an da hin und wieder mal vorab meinen Senf dazuzugeben – garantieren kann ich natürlich nichts, da jeder das Konzept "scope" ein wenig anders auslegt.
Um dein Beispiel mit dem KKW aufzugreifen: Für den uneingeweihten wären, unabhängig vom tatsächlichen Bild, erstmal sowohl Mülheim-Kärlich Nuclear Power Plant under construction als auch Kapelle/Chapel Am Guten Mann (Mülheim-Kärlich) separat für sich erstmal sinnvolle scopes gewesen. Bei diesem spezifischen Bild kam dann aber natürlich die Frage auf, was denn die Kapelle auf einem Atomkraftwerk-Bild zu suchen hat und umgekehrt. Was die beiden miteinander zu tun haben, ist für den unbedarften Betrachter leider nicht offensichtlich. Da hätte es nach Commons:VICR einer ausführlichen Bildbschreibung bedurft, dann hätte das evtl. klappen können. Idealerweise auf englisch (da kann man sich ja im Zweifel vorher Hilfe holen), und bei komplexeren Sachverhalten macht es durchaus Sinn das alles nochmal im reason=-Feld darzustellen (falls der reviewer die Bildbeschreibung nicht liest). Ohne genauere Beschreibung hätten es z.B. diese zwei Nominierungen vermutlich deutlich schwerer gehabt ;-)
Fazit: Wenn man "Bapperl" sammeln will fährt man wahrscheinlich tatsächlich am besten wenn man Bilder von semi-interessanten, selten fotografierten (aber bekannten oder einfach zu verstehenden) Objekten vorschlägt – oder vielleicht besser gleich zu QI gehen, da gibt's Bapperl im Überfluss. Wenn man echte oder vermeintliche Schätzchen vorstellt, sollte man den reviewern das nötige Hintergrundwissen vermitteln, sonst ist eine Ablehnung praktisch vorprogrammiert. Zu gu­ter Letzt: Ich halte die direkte Übersetzung "Valued Images" → "Wertvolle Bilder" für nicht ganz treffend, "besonders nützlich" entspräche da vielleicht eher der Realität. Beste Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Danke für Deine umfangreiche Antwort. In einigen Punkten liegen unsere Auffassungen von Valued images dicht beieinander, hier und da aber nicht unbedingt. Zum einen fällt mir auf, dass manche Objekte fotografiert und im Hinblick auf VI speziell Kategorien angelegt werden, um möglichst das eine beste Bild präsentieren zu können. Das kann aber nicht Sinn des Projekts sein. Meines Erachtens sollten Fotos als VI gekennzeichnet (nicht unbedingt „ausgezeichnet“) werden, die von einem weitreichenden Interesse sein könnten und nicht oder kaum wiederholbar sind.
Möglicherweise von Interesse und nicht wiederholbar ist zum Beispiel mein Foto des havarierten Rheindampfers. Von dem Bild von Kenneth Spencer hatte ich angenommen, es sei das einzige in den Commons; es gibt allerdings noch ein weiteres, auf dem der Sänger in einem Ensemble zu sehen ist. Auch diese historische Aufnahme ist nach meiner Meinung „wertvoll“. Dasselbe gilt wahrscheinlich für meine Bilder von Motorsportszenen und Porträts berühmter Rennfahrer.
Die Schwierigkeiten bei der Bewertung der Kernkraftwerkbaustelle Mülheim-Kärlich verstehe ich nicht. Das Objekt bewegte über Jahrzehnte die Gemüter weit über den Standort hinaus. Und für die weitgehende Gelassenheit der Einheimischen war die Kapelle eine der Ursachen. Sie blieb nämlich nicht nur stehen, wie es in den Bedingungen für den Erwerb des Geländes stand, sondern der KKW-Betreiber renovierte sie in hervorragender Weise, ergänzt durch neue Außenanlagen. Von daher schien mir das Kirchlein im Gesamtbild seine Berechtigung zu haben.
Aber ich will jetzt nicht um eine positive Bewertung betteln oder gar kämpfen. Ich nehme es hin, dass zum Beispiel das weitgehend unbekannte Haus Nr. 25 in der Burgstraße von Dingsdorf mit eigener Kategorie wertvoller ist. ;-) Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Deine Ablehnung meines Jim-Clark-Fotos und die Anmerkungen von Archaeodontosaurus zu dem Regazzoni-Foto lassen mich spüren, dass ich im Projekt Valued image candidates unpassend, um nicht zu sagen unerwünscht bin. Ich werde Euch deshalb mit meinen nach Eurer Meinung stümperhaften Bildchen nicht mehr belästigen und nur noch hier und da meine Meinung zu dem sagen, was Ihr für „wertvoll“ haltet, zum Beispiel irgendein Haus in irgendeiner Stadt, mit aktueller Digitalkamera fotografiert und in eine eigens angelegte Kategorie eingeordnet. Übrigens: Ich hatte in Klammern das blaue Hemd als Hinweis und nicht als Bildbeschreibung genannt, weil nicht anzunehmen ist, dass heute jeder Jim Clark noch kennt. Wenn es Dir als gravierender Fehler erschien, hättest Du es entfernen können. Aber wie gesagt: Ich gehöre hier offensichtlich nicht hin. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Vorübergehend hatte ich geglaubt, die absurden Bewertungen ließen nach. Das scheint aber nicht der Fall zu sein, wie hier zu sehen ist. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
… und es wird immer seltsamer. Mag es verstehen, wer will. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

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)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".