Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive/2011-01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Making nominating easier - the QInominator Gadget[edit]

I added another component to make nominating a bunch of images for QI really easy. I figured as voting is easier we might as well make nominating easier too, and increase total throughput of QIC. Go ahead and activate the QInominator gadget in your preferences.

Procedure to nominate is as follows:

  1. Go to the file description page of the images you want to nominate.
  2. On each page you find a link Nominate this image for QI click it and edit the description text. It will appear in your nomination.
  3. Once you went through all images you wan to nominate go to COM:QIC and edit the most current date section. A green bar will appear above the edit window. Click it to insert you previously collected images.
  4. Submit the edit. Done.

Let me know how it works for you. And happy new year! --Dschwen (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it have an in-built flooding break? --Elekhh (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The next generation will have preview of selected images, removal of images from the nomination set. Then I could add a flooding break, but I'd add it just as a suggestion, since it should be ok if people add other peoples images or very different images. I'll also add detection of images that are already QIs to avoid double nomination. --Dschwen (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It's cool when scrips can ease and assist the process in this manner. Thanks for taking your time to implement these improvements. And Happy New Year! --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sehr nützlich. Ein kleiner Fehler ist mir aufgefallen: Hier File:Saqqara BW 15.jpg wurde der englische Beschreibungstext zweimal hintereinander als "Nomination text" in das aufpoppende Fenster kopiert. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the gadget is a bit of a mess currently as I'm in the middle of transitioning it to a new mechanism. I'll take a look at that image though. --Dschwen (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I had the same effect with File:Opernhaus_Stuttgart_amk.jpg. But the gadget is really great. Thumbs up! --AngMoKio (座谈) 15:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Updated statistics[edit]

QI statistics, absolute numbers
QI statistics, promoted fraction (note the break around Mar'09)

I just updated my old QI statistics graph of promotions and declines. Might be of general interest. What happened in march 2009? The fraction of promoted images made a big jump. --Dschwen (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No reactions? Ha, I guess it is a good thing that people spend more time judging and nominating images rather than blabbering on the discussion page ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting and nice graph! I joined QI after the March 2009 event, so I am not aware of what could have caused the jump, but I would also like to know. I note that the jump corresponds to an increase in overall nominations. --Elekhh (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Very interesting and nice graph! I do not have sufficient experience in QI, but, sometimes, the voting systems expire.--Miguel Bugallo 19:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, since the promotion rate increased from March 2009 on, two things may have happened: an increase of the average quality of the pictures or a decrease in the average quality of the reviews. Anyboby wants to calculate the corresponding correlations? We may start by assuming, as a start, that the "quality of the reviews" is strongly correlated with the "experience of the reviewers". And that the "experience of the reviewers" is correlated with the quality of their pictures. And that ... etc. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just found out what happened. "Quality Images" has become "Pretty Good Images". Reviewing according to the technical guidelines (pointing out a large burnt area on the middle of the subject, omnipresent noise, denoising artefacts...) makes you look like a total ass (and bitten by other reviewers). Now there are "compensational supports" to cancel technical opposes. --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't read your words because your words are in English and I can't do much more. I think that there is a an important lack of seriousness in Commons:Quality images candidates. Sorry, but it's my opinion--Miguel Bugallo 00:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain? I hope you do not refer to your recent actions. --High Contrast (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know my recent actions at 07:41, 8 February 2011, but thanks: I'm poor--Miguel Bugallo 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In spanish: Mala hostia--Miguel Bugallo 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close of consensual review when dispute fully resolved[edit]

I speedy closed this as there was full consensus after the reviewer contesting the promotion changed position, so no reason to search consensus. This I though was a common sense decision, to shorten the bureaucratic process, yet it was reverted, so I would like feedback whether this should be acceptable in the future or not. --ELEKHHT 23:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you translate your words to Spanish, Portuguesh or Galician language? I can't understand you--Miguel Bugallo 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion there is no need to short circuit the process. This case might be clear to you, but if we start down that track it will just invite other people to speedy close things on their criteria. We will then need to start voting on whether a particular speedy close was right or not ...... Keep life simple, Just wait 48 hours :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is the QI purpose?[edit]

I will ask for a friend who translates my words, if she can. I cannot write my words in English. If I have the translation, I write it here. Sorry.

(Español:) En primer lugar deseo pedir disculpas. Primeramente porque mi comentario va a ser largo. En segundo lugar, porque puede parecer que deseo romper con la natural marcha de la comunidad en la página QI, pero no es cierto; lo que ocurre es que no acabo de entender... quiero respetar lo que se hace, pero no entiendo lo que se hace. Quizás no esté de acuerdo y desee con estas palabras hacer simplemente pensar o facilitarme el comprender.

Ruego benevolencia al leer mis palabras. No hay en ellas ninguna crispación. Solamente voy a intentar expresar, aunque yo no soy nadie, lo que para mí es QI.

La actividad que se realiza en las páginas correspondientes a QI me parece muy importante dentro de Commons. Con esta votación se consigue que Commons tenga una dimensión educativa. De hecho, yo empecé a participar para mejorar mis imágenes, para saber de la opinión de otros. Es una zona accesible, más accesible que FP.

No me importa que una imagen mía sea o no sea promovida a QI. Lo que me importa es comprender cómo puedo mejorar en una actividad (la fotografía) en la que soy un aficionado, no un experto.

Si los usuarios no critican hasta el más mínimo detalle mis imágenes, yo no puedo mejorar. Que después de las críticas la imagen sea considerada QI, es otra cuestión; el caso es que, cuanto más nos hagamos pensar los unos a los otros, más mejoraremos.

Piénsese en la última imagen que he propuesto (File:2011-02-06 Toras. Vilarromarís.jpg). La he propuesto esperando críticas. La crítica que ha habido no la he entendido. Tras la crítica que ha habido, he preguntado el porqué o bien cómo recortar la imagen (con mi pobre inglés). Yo esperaba críticas con otros motivos. Esperaba que se me dijese que había demasiado brillo o que la perspectiva de la toma no era la correcta, que me debía haber colocado en un ángulo -a la hora de tomar la foto- que evitase la aparición de las plantas de la parte inferior izquierda.

Que después de esas críticas la imagen fuese o no fuese QI me importa poco: Yo estoy aquí para aprender, para oír a otros lo que dicen sobre lo que hago, no para que me pongan medallas que no necesito.

¿Cuando se crearon estas páginas, se crearon para poner medallas? Si fuese así, en mi opinión, en mi modesta opinión, se debería intentar caminar hacia una finalidad más educativa.

En mi opinión, cuantas más críticas, cuantas más opiniones (bien o mal fundamentadas, ciertas o erradas, aunque es preferible que no sean erradas), cuanta más discusión, mejor, más posibilidades de aprender. Pero hay algo muy necesario, tremendamente necesario: cortar toda falta de respeto. La inoperancia ante las faltas de respeto hace que se diga “good”, pero que no se diga el motivo por el cual la imagen no es “very good”.

En mi opinión, a pesar de que Commons es un espacio colaborativo, en estas páginas se genera miedo. Nadie debería tener miedo a confundirse o a no pensar igual.

Lo siento, es mi opinión (aunque puedo cambiarla escuchando a otros). Mi opinión es que si algo en una imagen no me parece perfecto, debo decirlo. Si me confundo, me he confundido. Lo que importa es pensar y mejorar. Al menos, para mí. Yo no debo tener miedo. Nadie debe intentar meterme miedo. Debemos estar juntos aunque discrepemos.--Miguel Bugallo 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

English Translation[edit]

The following is the approx english translation. --JovianEye (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"I would first like to apologize. Firstly because my comment will be long. Secondly, it may seem natural desire to break with the pace of the community on page QI, but it is true, what happens is that I can not understand ... I respect what you do, but do not understand what you are doing. You may not agree with these words and want to just think or give me to understand.

Please kindly to read my words. There is no tension in them. I will only try to express, but I'm no one, which for me is QI.

The activity that takes place in the pages for QI seems very important in Commons. This vote ensures that Commons has an educational dimension. In fact, I started to participate to improve my image, to know the opinions of others. It is an area accessible, more affordable than FP.

I do not mind a picture of me whether or not promoted to QI. What matters to me is to understand how I can improve in an activity (photography) in which I am an amateur, not an expert.

If users do not criticize even the smallest detail my pictures, I can not improve. That after the image is considered critical QI, is another matter, the fact is, the more we do think of each other, further improvements.

Think of the last image I have proposed (File :2011-02-06 Toras. Vilarromarís.jpg). The critics have proposed waiting. The criticism that has been I have not understood. Following the criticism that has been, I wondered why or how to crop the image (with my poor English). I expected criticism on other grounds. I expected him to tell me that was too bright or that the prospect of making was not right, I should have been placed at an angle, when taking the picture, which avoids the appearance of the plants in the lower left .

That after the criticism the image was or was not QI matters little to me: I am here to learn, to hear what others say about what I do, not to put me I do not need medals.

When these pages were created, were created to bring medals? If so, in my opinion, in my humble opinion, you should try to move towards a more educational purpose.

In my opinion, the more critical, the more opinions (good or ill-informed, right or wrong, but preferably not mistaken), the more discussion, better, more opportunities for learning. But there is something very necessary, extremely necessary: cut any lack of respect. The ineffectiveness to the lack of respect makes you say "good", but did not say the reason why the image is not "very good".

In my opinion, although Commons is a collaborative space in these pages is generated fear. Nobody should be afraid to merge or not to think alike.

Sorry, it's my opinion (although I can change it by listening to others). My opinion is that if something in a picture does not seem perfect, I must say. If I get confused, I confused. What matters is to think and improve. At least for me. I should have no fear. No one should try to scare me. We should be together even though we disagree."

The recent tension at QI is slightly disturbing. If a person is not satisfied with a review provided then they must request a discussion and try to get community consensus. At the same time we must give due respect what others have to say be it good or bad. Constructive criticism should be taken positively. Biting and attacking fellow contributors will get us nowhere. The objective of QI is to learn and improve oneself. Most contributors here are already quite skilled photographers. Having said that there is always room for improvement. --JovianEye (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your tranlation. I'm agree with your words, but your words are a poor simplification of the problem. After your words, I believe that here (QI) I do not have to continue collaborating --Miguel Bugallo 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I disappear. It's the best thing for me.--Miguel Bugallo 21:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The main purpose of QI is to improve the standard of images on Commons, by encouraging people to contribute high quality images. So the emphasis is on technical qualities of the images. It is not really a suitable forum for in-depth discussions or tutorials, nor specifically to educate photographers. It is really just a pass/fail flag for images. The "awards" are for the images, not for the photographers!
The system is really meant to be a quick evaluation of images, not long discussions. There need only be a single review of an image, additional comments and discussion are rarely needed. Additionally there is a "consensual review" forum for when there is a dispute about the review - really this is just to help standardise the quality of reviews to avoid overly strict or lenient reviews.
Hopefully participating in QI both as a contributor of images and as a reviewer will improve peoples awareness of quality issues and improve their photography. There is a process Commons:Photography critiques that is better suited to in depth discussion and helping contributors more directly - although I am afraid it is little used.
--Tony Wills (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Angry IP[edit]

There is what seems to be an angry IP who is giving out bad and mean reviews without signing and changing the promotion status of candidates. I reverted a few but then I felt like I should make sure that this is right. IP can't review images? And not signing is good reason for a revert? Hope to ear your opinion! Letartean (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right: Any registered user can review a nomination. And in this case "not signing" is a additional good reason for reverting. Also reviews of registered users (that forgot to sign) were reverted in the past. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Couple of proposals/suggestions to the rules[edit]

  1. There should be a tip to reviewers to use the Symbol support vote.svg Support and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose templates. I always do this so that when I review an image, if another user disagrees with me and drags the image to discussion my opinion is already there.
  2. Image nominators should be allowed to move an image to discussion, if not already, so they aren't so helpless if an image is declined and get a community review and last chance to make their case.
What do you guys think?
-- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Your second point is already covered by the project procedures. --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
First point may be integrated in the QI Vote helper. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Second point: nominators should respect the reviewer's opinion, otherwise why nominate? I think is a rather bad practice when nominators move images to consensual review. --ELEKHHT 03:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. Individual reviews do not reflect an absolute truth. Several reviewers will review a same picture in very different ways (even when referring to the common image guidelines, which is not always the case), and if the nominator feels that the current review differs too much from the usual project standards, it is absolutely normal that they call for other opinions for an averaged opinion to emerge. --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
But reviews are being reviewed by other editors, that is why they stay after preliminary closure on the page for two more days. If not challenged it means other reviewers actually agree, so the opinion is not of one reviewer. In all cases I've seen so far when a nominator single-handedly move his/her nomination to consensual review the nomination failed. --ELEKHHT 20:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You can't assume that when nobody comments on a vote, it means that everybody would have approved it in a consensual review. Images moved to discussion attracts much more attention. --Eusebius (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
...But some nominators are systematic and do not accept criticisms. Some of them think that a "decline" review = a following consensual review. This behaviour is NOT respectful to the reviewer. Some months after the beginning of this discussion, I strongly agree with ELEKHH, and obviously disagree with Eusebius. The opinion of one of the reviewers should be enough for a Symbol support vote.svg Support , but not for a Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose? Why ? In real, a picture needs ONE vote to be promotted, and at least TWO votes to be declined. That is not fair. The fact of nominating a picture in QIC means obviously that the nominator thinks that his/her picture IS a quality image. So he/she is always disappointed by a decline vote... And we can see some strategies : one systematically questions decline reviews, then reviewers hesitate to judge, then one collect a lot of unassessed pictures, renominated and renominated ad nauseam until a promotion. This little war is not good for the project IMO. I think the rules must be changed, and the nominators not allowed to put their own pictures in "consensual reviews". --Jebulon (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it is important not go too far and not get carried away. First: QI is a little appeal making good pictures and maybe learning new sometimes. It is not the noble price and it is nothing very special. Second: most of the pictures I put in the consensual review pull a couple of users that have a different view. There is no substantial who opens the consensual review. Either the picture is good for QI and it will be declared as one or not. I agree with Eusebius. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Putting ones own images into CR should be an exception, not the rule, otherwise the whole procedure doesn't make sense. I am sure declined images are scrutinized more closely by other reviewers (to find out if the reason for declining is true) than promoted images. --Quartl (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I can present more than one example where I put a declined QIC to review where this one was promoted after that. Don't see the point for agitation. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


It is possible to re-nominate a picture once the eigth day period to evaluate it is over? It´s really frustrating to see how pictures you think are good enough to be QI are removed form the list without any response. Regards. elemaki (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to renominate unassessed candidates (at least, I and other people have done it before and I can't recall any criticism of such renominations). I thought it was in the guidelines, I'm surprised not to find it. --Eusebius (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your quick answer. Regards. --elemaki (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand[edit]

why dasappear my photo (File:Windmill in Busjökloster+.jpg) that I have uploaded on QI from Commons 22.03.2011 ? I am new-comer here. Vitold Muratov 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC) and Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 12:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Vitold. You never nominated that image for QI - the latest revision you have on the nominations page is back from the 16th March, and this one wasn't uploaded until today. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
My God! But I have seen the photo of mine with my own eyes on the list above in the thumble form!

Would You please to give me all the way needed step by step?

I would be too obliged You ! Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 13:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CR closures[edit]

Carschten recently went through declaring many opinions from CR invalid because they'd come more than 8 days after the CR process began, due to 8 days being insufficient to reach a consensus. In several of those reviews a consensus was just about emerging. I understand that we shouldn't keep an image in CR forever, but what's the point of declaring comments invalid just because they come after some arbitrary time period? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong in what he did because he just followed the rules. If we want to see a change is this methodology then will need to discuss it here with other users. --Jovian Eye (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying that he wasn't following the rules, I'm just asking whether the rules make sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe this has been discussed before, but have no time to look it up in the archives now. IMO it is a wrong interpretation of the rules which state that "In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry." Problem is the ambiguity of "entry" (i.e. (a) day of initial nomination or (b) day of listing in the CR section?) Sometimes an image is transferred to CR after not having been reviewed for 7 days, in which case there is no time left for a meaningful CR. In such cases interpretation (a) makes no sense IMO. I would suggest to adopt interpretation (b) and clarify the rule accordingly. --ELEKHHT 04:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as I remember it, it was always meant to be from its entry into CR (b) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that this just happened to two more images, can we have a discussion about whether the rule should be changed to something along the lines of until a consensus emerges, or after 8 days in CR and no votes in the past 2 days? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"until a consensus emerges" - isnt that a bit vague. Rules should be very clear. Otherwise arguments will begin whether consensus was emerging. --Jovian Eye talk 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
How about "can" be closed instead of "will" be closed, and drop the "maximum"? That would at least reflect current practice. --ELEKHHT 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The idea of the 8 day clause is just to stop things hanging around forever. Perhaps simplify and say "CR entries may be closed after 8 days if no decision has been made."
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Remember that the whole idea of QI is to promote improving the standard of images submitted to Commons, it is not a competition, the aim is to help and encourage photographers while benefiting Commons and hence other wiki projects. There is no need for lawyerish interpretation of rules --Tony Wills (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

QI-Bot problem[edit]


the QI-Bot has problems since yesterday. I have reported this already to Dschwen: User_talk:Dschwen#QIBot-Problem. See seems to be very busy. Don't know if this can be fixed by an other one. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at the execution report of QICbot and I don't see the reason why it stopped (Daniel is more experienced than me, he may find out something that I didn't see). The report e-mail stops in the middle of a sentence, maybe because of an external issue on the toolserver. I'm afraid the only solution is to resolve the inconsistencies manually (it's too late to revert, and probably we should write a script to clean up things after a failed run -- but both Daniel and I are very busy IRL I'm afraid). I don't have the time right now, but I've noted which run failed and I might be able to make the corrections this week-end. I hope it won't happen again... Sorry about that. --Eusebius (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Today it worked well. The incompleted bot-procedure of yesterday will be reseted. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you taking care of that? --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
yes, I will look after this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks then. Send me a message if you need a hand. --Eusebius (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I just fixed it myself. I saw the cut-off report mail too. Odd. --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand again[edit]

why dasappear my photo (File:Helsinborg.Misty morning.jpg ‎) that I have uploaded on QI from Commons 18:51 03.April 2011 ? And why I am not able to load it again? Vitold Muratov 21:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

At 18:51 you did not add this picture to the QI candidates, you simply uploaded it another time, over your existing file. Your picture is here. This is how you add a picture to the list of QI candidates. --Eusebius (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This day I have made new file: Helsingborg . Morning+.jpg. In 200% it is OK at home. But here it is bad again. What is happend? Vitold Muratov 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing happened, the file is fine. --Dschwen (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split the QI categories into sub-pages[edit]

The pages where the QIs are displayed are too long! The thumbnails take forever to load. For instance if one were to open Commons:Quality images/Subject/Objects the number of images in the gallery is just too long to navigate comfortably and over time this list will only get longer given the growth of this project. I would suggest to split the categories into sub-pages. --Jovian Eye talk 00:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --99of9 (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info If you modify the gallery structure, the list at the beginning of MediaWiki:QIhelper.js must stricly fit the new structure for the bot to work properly. --Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It is already in subpages, they are just transcluded into the Objects page. The main QI display page is set up to accomadate various languages, but I don't think that these subpages are. So if we are going to replace the translusions with links, perhaps illustrate each link with one or more representative illustrations of the subpages - ie make the page into a gallery of links. We should also look at internationalising the titles/descriptions on all pages at some stage. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so I have already implemented this concept for one main category. Take a look at Commons:Quality images/Subject/Objects and put forward suggestions, if any (I think I can use some help in the numbering). The splitting of the page will not affect the functioning of QI bot since the bot sorts the images directly into sub-pages. Jovian Eye talk 15:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is after all Commons, not wikipedia, so I thought we should do it graphically rather than a boring list :-). So here is my first effort: [[User:Tony Wills/sandbox]], feel free to edit it to your hearts content and/or critique the idea :-). I have only used images that are QI and have a light coloured or transparent background. You can click on the images to take you to sub-pages, but there is also a © link next to each to satisfy attribution requirements! --Tony Wills (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Flickr question[edit]

Hi there - I have a selection of photographs that I have taken, and I uploaded them from my Flickr account. (Example: [1]) I'd like to nominate some of my images for quality image status, however, I'm afraid they won't be accepted due to this Flickr information. Are they eligible? If not, what is your advice on going about making it possible for me to nominate these images (i.e. deleting and re-uploading, etc?). Thanks! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You can definitely nominate flickr images for QI as long as your the photographer. We do have few users who do this. It is completely acceptable. However it is better to indicate the Wikimedia ID on the file description page, otherwise reviewers will be misled to believe that it isnt the work of a Commons User. Additionally, File:Malvern_Cannons_,_Civil_War_Battlefield,_RIchmond_National_Battlefield.jpg is too small for QI because it isnt 2 megapixels. --Jovian Eye talk 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you ! :) Missvain (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No Reviews[edit]

Every picture submitted for review should be offered a review by someone even if it is to decline. At least photographers get feedback on the delta between their perceptions and the general public. Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And this obligation should be directed towards whom? If it is not fulfilled, by whom is it violated? It can be a general statement about what would be a nice characteristic of the reviewing process, but it cannot be a rule because it would not bind anyone. From a more pragmatic point of view, unassessed pictures can be resubmitted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I said "should" not "shall". I wasn't seeking a rule change just a call to arms as it were to fellow photographers. As such, the obligation, if any, is directed at the community. Photos not reviewed send a message the contribution was not worth the effort of a simple vote or critique. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Or simply that there are more contributors than reviewers. Personally, I prefer having less reviews but of better quality, although I understand that not getting any reviews can be frustrating. Reviewing is not like casting a vote, it needs time and commitment to be done seriously, and a profusion of hastily made reviews wouldn't benefit the project or the nominators. Final point, users shouldn't feel sorry or apologize for not giving enough reviews (I don't imply that you're suggesting that): maybe they don't have enough time for that, maybe they don't feel competent, maybe they just don't want to (and it's their right). I suppose that those who have the time, will and know-how are already making the number of reviews they're able to do. --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

QI-Bot problem II[edit]

The QI-Bot did not archive today, I have informed the coder [2]. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. I'll launch a manual run of the bot. --Eusebius (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
An edit conflict again? --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks for the notice, I'll launch a manual run again. --Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
But this should not reaped to often. How do you start the bot-run manual? Can I do this also? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
An access to the code on the toolserver is needed. Currently, only Dschwen and I (I'm an additional maintainer of both QIC- and VICbot) can do that. I have noted the issue and plan to make the code more tolerant to edit conflicts (which are due to the high edit rate in the candidate page). --Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New bot-problem today [3] --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I too saw that. A re-run by Dschwen might be required. --Jovian Eye storm 12:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm on it, but the commons API (the connection for the bot) is very flaky today. There is little I can do. I filed abug report and asked on the IRC, but nothing came of it yet. --Dschwen (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Scan of artwork from books?[edit]

Hello, the QIC documentation says, "Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible..." I would like to submit an image of a painting. I made the scan from a book. But the actual painting was photographed (and subsequently published) by someone else (not the author), unrelated to me or Wikimedia. The licensing explicitly states that the 2D photographic reproduction of the painting is in the PD because the painting is. So the only thing I had to do with the image was the scan. Is it still eligible for QIC review? Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This was (barely) discussed here in the archives; someone suggested that scanning be excluded, but only one person opposed it. My question still stands though! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Scans of artwork originally published in book form are definitely allowed (and have previously been promoted). The only person who specifically opposed the winning proposal (99of9) did so because they felt it wasn't inclusive enough (i.e. they objected to the part that said "edits of reproduction work begun by someone else are forbidden"), but voted for a more liberal option. No one else addressed that issue directly. There were six votes for the winning proposal or something broader, versus two votes in support of banning all historic 2-D artworks from QI, and another vote for an option with similar effect.
I'm not sure whether your image would be allowed under a literal reading of the winning proposal. It is a scan of a 2-D artwork, made by a Wikipedian, but I suspect you would have had to edit it (if only to crop it), which arguably might make it an edit of "reproduction work begun by someone else" (the original photographer). Personally I think your image falls within the spirit of the current rules, at least. --Avenue (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you! The only thing cropped was the page around the painting. And I wouldn't nominate a painting that was snagged from an already digital source, like a museum or something (and I'm kind of proud that I wasn't able to find it anywhere online). But I still wasn't sure if a scan was acceptable; sounds like it may be, and I see at least one example floating on the project page so far. I've never done QI before, so I'll review the image to make absolutely sure it's presentable and give it a go! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification to photographer[edit]

I see one of my photographs has recently been promoted to QI. I only became aware of this as the image is on my watchlist. Whilst I'm obviously flattered that it's been promoted, I'm a little annoyed that no-one's bothered to tell me (I wasn't even aware that it had been nominated) whereas the nominator gets a congratulations message. Is nominating a photo more effort than taking it? I'd like to know if any other of my images have been nominated but failed - if I'd been aware of any criticism I could have learnt from my mistakes. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that it is nice to know when an image is nominated for QIC, and when I nominate others images I would usually inform them (although I could forget to do it) as a courtesy. If such a notification mechanism should work (always) it would be preferable that it was bot-assisted; that is, the QIC bot should keep track of new nominations and notify the creator of a photo about its nomination if the creator was another user than the nominator. Doing that alone is, I think a little difficult to implement, unless each nomination is somehow tagged having been "creator notified".
Regarding notifications about promotion, I agree it would be preferable for the creator to be notified also, although many would find out if they have their file pages on their watchlists. Again this should really be done by a bot due to the large number of images being processed at QIC. I think it is mostly due to programmatic convenience that only the nominator is notified currently. I think it is a little harder for a bot to find the creator of an image in a consistent and fool proof manner, but I could be wrong regarding that. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to QIC and I haven't nom'd any images yet. But I absolutely see Tivedshambo's point. Nowhere in Commons:Quality_images_candidates#For_nominators does it even mention adding a courtesy notification on the photographer's talk page. I think creating a template and subst'ing it would be ideal. Since nominators are asked to not flood the project with images, I don't see it being a problem to nominate an image, then take the time to notify the author. A template could be created easily, then someone could add the notification suggestion and {{subst:xxxx}} code in the "For nominators" section. Shouldn't be too difficult. No bot would be required. The notification would alert the author and he or she could "watch" their image (in case they stopped doing so) or keep an eye out for it actually being awarded. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Those are good points. I agree it would be a good idea to add an encouragement to make a courtesy notification to the creator when nominating creations from other users. I agree it would be a good idea to implement such a notification template that one could subst. I have started using the QIChelper script when nominating a photo for QI (very nice). The notification may be something which can be incorporated in its current implementation perhaps? Not that I personally mind do it manually myself, its just that if it can be assisted my some logic, then why not let the technology help (remember)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The QIChelper is beyond any technical knowledge I have. I don't mind notifying users manually either (most likely because I don't do it too often). I'm actually rather new to Commons in general, so I'm not sure if there is a Twinkle or Friendly-type gadget that Commons has in place. If so, then QIC could request a template be added to one of those automated user-notification programs. If not, then it's still simple: a template be created, the QIC documentation updated. If there is software (QIChelper) to help users, the template can be incorporated into that somehow.
As for the template, should it be a "pretty" one, maybe a box, the QI seal (or not), a background color that represents QI (if there is one)? Or should it just be a simple text message? I suppose it should include magic words to identify the User from the basepagename, it should include a link to the image (this would be a parameter manually edited by notifier), and it should include a summary of the purpose of QI and any other information regarding the nomination, like how long it may take, and if the author wishes to participate at the discussion, etc etc. And the word "congratulations" could be thrown in there as well : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a better idea to notify the authors when the image is promoted, not nominated. The QI process normally involves a detailed examination and a review, and not everyone wants to receive a review on one's work. Unsollicited comments/critique/advice are not always welcome. It could be done by QICbot, if there's a clear consensus about it and no objection from Dschwen (because I think the issue has already been debated in the past and he may remember better than me why we/he didn't do it). Also, I would like to point out that not all authors have an account from Commons, so occasionally the bot would fail to deliver the message. --Eusebius (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, all the QI nominations I made of other authors' work have been delivered to the author, not the nominator, and I was happy with that. Last one was in January. I did however always link to the author's user page in the nomination. --ELEKHHT 09:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Guys, please just search the archives, this has been asked before, and the short answer is what Elekhh said: Mention the author in the nomination, then the bot will notify him. It is very hard for the bot to determine the image author by himself and implementing such code would be a waste of time if the problem can easily be avoided by the nominator. Notification goes to the first username in the description. As simple as that. In most cases that is the nominator's signature, but if the author is explicitly states (i.e. Picture of something by User:Somebody. --Dschwen (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)) you can make the bot notify whomever you want. --Dschwen (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, this is why I should not be allowed to talk about the code :-) --Eusebius (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Then the only thing left to do would be to make sure the nominators understand this, so a short explanation in the documentation, and then the problem is more or less out of our hands. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added such an explanation to the nomination instructions. --Avenue (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot help[edit]

O (bot) add a new date section heading every day at Commons:Village pump. Can we do the same thing here, allow a bot to add a new gallery every day?--Ankara (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No challenging QI status once given?[edit]

Tried to find guidelines even mentioning revoking a QI status but didn't find anything. Can this be done? I happened upon a QI that in my opinion shouldn't have been promoted and whose promotion I would have immediately challenged in CR had I been active at that time. Can I bring the image to be re-evaluated in CR? Pitke (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As the rules are today: Once promoted always promoted. It is an issue which has discussed numerous times previously (I am too lazy to give you the references, please see in the archives). I do not recall the exact arguments pro and con, but I think one of the cons is the make the process light-weight. That demoting a QI is maybe not worth the effort compared to the resources needed for a delisting process, the always bad feeling it triggers amongst the creators who gets their images demoted, and QI promotion is not an exact science anyway... That said, it is of course a thing we can discuss again. An evident pro of delisting is that we could change a bad decision. --Slaunger (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
To be frank, this is the only QI I've met that would make a plausible delisting candidate. As such I imagine a delist section would not be cluttered, especially if it was expected the delist nominator give an extended explanation as to why the image should be delisted. Making stuff harder to do is a good way to avoid numbers of lazy nominations. Rules should also state that images that reached their QI status via a CR can not be nominated for delisting. Pitke (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Another "historical con" is that a QI promotion is a consequence of the technical level required at a certain date in the project history: the requirements change (with technology and project maturity) and it is normal that older QIs are technically inferior to recent ones (or superior, when the reviewers become less demanding). This is not necessarily my point of view, this is a summary of what was said in a previous discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no formal process, but there has been an occasion or two where after some irregularity a promoted image has been yanked back to CR immediately after promotion. But I wouldn't encourage the practice. It is not really that important, one bad apple isn't going to ruin the harvest :-) -Tony Wills (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Well this is not a question about obsolete tech. quality (it's a Jan 2011 promotion) but about compositional defects. Pitke (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011[edit]

I wonder if FPC/QIC/VIC people is aware of this photo contest -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

QI helper issues[edit]

Hello, I got 2 problems with QI helper:

  1. If I do a second review, it adds an unwanted vertical line (|) before my comment.
  2. If the image is too small, it is displayed in full size. Yann (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The tool really helps us, but I dare to add another proposal: After the voting the cursor jumps to the end of the gallery, would be nice, if it would stay in the same file discussion as before. mfg --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't QIVoter add file name plus your comment to the 'Edit Summary' line automatically?[edit]

Why doesn't the QIVoter add file name plus your comment to the 'Edit Summary' line automatically? This will make the history page look so much better. Right now I copy the file name automatically to the edit summary, and retype my comment. Most people don't do this, so the history page is not as useful as it could be. Fred Hsu (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I rad your question as a suggestion. A good one. --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
If I ever find myself having no pictures to nominate, perhaps I may even enhance the QIVoter code myself... Fred Hsu (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

QICbot temporarily deactivated due to Wikimedia server problems[edit]

I have temporarily deactivated the QICbot until this bug will be dealt with. The wikimedia commons servers are completely unreliable right now and cause the bot to fail and me having to clean up after it. This is an undesirable situation, but there is not much I can do about it. The server administrators will have to take care of that. In the mean time please try to manually abide to the QIC guidelines. in particular if an image was promoted more than two days ago just refrain from commenting on it. I strongly advise against manually archiving. I'm sure the bot will run again very soon, and it is just not worth the trouble. --Dschwen (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bug is resolved, bot is running again. --Dschwen (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
deactivated again? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Not by me. --Dschwen (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

5 years -[edit]

I noticed that QI past the 5 year milestone and like the when QI passed the 1,000th image to be promoted it went unnoticed. Well done to everyone that has made QI the success it is. Gnangarra 12:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm here only since one year and a half, but I cannot let this message without answer. So, I thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 1Mpx possible?[edit]

Hi, I would like to discuss the possibility or allowance of nominating 4 pictures I took. But unfortunately my camera isn't able to have sharp pictures such close to the object. I mean the 4 CCCP / Russian palladium coin pictures: File:Sowjetunion 25 Rubel 1990 Palladium 36.jpg, File:Sowjetunion 25 Rubel 1990 Peter I. 37.jpg, File:Russland 25 Rubel 1993 Palladium 40.jpg and File:Russland 25 Rubel 1993 Modest Mussorgski 41.jpg. Any chance to nominate anyway? NobbiP talk 17:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please consider Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list. Its purpose is to recognize valued pictures such as the ones you have taken. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Walter, thanks for your suggestion. I'll give it a try ;-) NobbiP talk 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

QICbot problem[edit]

Please notice that there was some problem with QICbot today. Some pictures are already promoted and their discussion archived, but they are still listed on candidates page. -- Jakubhal 17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

QICBot did his job, only at the candidate list page he didn't. I think because there were two edits [4] at 14:01 and he had no chance to make his edit at this time (edit conflict). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so now we wait for another bot round... -- Jakubhal 20:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
A new problem ? The most ancient QI in the QIC page at the date of 1st october was promotted on 15 september (usual process, no consensual review), is still in this page and was still not notified to the nominator... Normal ? --Jebulon (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Superfluous whitespace in the template threw the bot off. --Dschwen (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I understand. Thank you. It was not very grave. Just a question. --Jebulon (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

QIBot Problem on 12. november again. Bot startet to sort images in the gallery's but didn`t finished his job. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Off topic query - sensor cleaning[edit]

Yeah maybe there are better places to post (?) but I figured folk who watch this page might just be able to help! I'm after someone with actual experience of cleaning DSLR sensors. I know all the caveats etc etc and with my previous camera I got someone else to do (professionally) and frankly the job was ok but... Now the dust bunnies are back on the new one and yes I've had a go at cleaning it. I've moved the little buggers but not got them off the sensor so anyone with an actual technique for doing it would be great.

Just to stress - I realise this is at my risk and they are not shiftable with a pressure blower at all so wet cleaning is the only avenue open to me and the cost of having it done by someone else at all often is not an option! In hope - thanks :) --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I use labgrade lint free paper towels and Methanol(!). Ethanol will leave stripes, methanol dries off clean. I wrap the paper towel around a long piece of plastic with a straight edge at the bottom, about as wide as the sensor (cut from a wallet sized plastic card). Works well. --Dschwen (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated. My issue is more with technique I think than equipment though. I bought prepared swabs but after using 4 all I'd done was move them around not get them off the sensor. I took it to a local camera shot and the guy there took 4 attempts to clear them in the end. I think it was weather/humidity maybe which turned blowable spots into "welded" ones (here and might be useful to others) as they arrived in a 24 hour period.
Any tips on technique are more than welcome. Maybe one issue for me is that I seem to need size 2 swabs for my camera but they are not big enough to cover the sensor so there is a tendency to lift the swab off the sensor which I think is wrong? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting by socketpuppets[edit]

Hi there,

this user that has voted last three times against my picture is obviously a socketpuppet. Is there a not a condition to be able to take part in votings here at QI? I can't find at the QI-rules. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be covered by more general policies about sockpuppetry. If you believe that a sockpuppet is being used to perform vote-stacking or to harass yourself, you can request a checkuser check. --Eusebius (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
This was not my question. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Any registered user can vote on QI AFAIK (I'm aware of no restrictions at the level of the QI project), but using a sockpuppet to perform vote-stacking or to target a particular user falls into the scope of more general policies. In the past, though, some people found it useful to use sockpuppets in order to vote anonymously on the QI/FP projects, which was not a problem as soon as there was no collusion with their usual account and the sockpuppet actions were not disruptive. If it still does not answer your question, then I just don't understand what you are asking for. --Eusebius (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Now you did, but Alvesgaspar did also. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • No, there is no such condition in QIC. I would support something like FPC rule #4: Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable, the behavior of "Focus_finder" is obvious not constructive. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    After a quick look, I don't really see what the problem can be with this user's contrib. Could you be more specific, on an example maybe? --Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    The problem is: this user has nothing contributed to Commons but vote here at QI. This he does to hide his real identity and if a user votes four times against my pictures within short time it looks like a personal payoff and not like a serious review. It is very implausible that a completely new user finds this page and crusades against pictures of a certain user. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    As I said in my message above, I don't have any problems with users voting with a secondary account as soon as they're not targeting anyone or manipulating votes, because it allows some kind of blind reviewing. Of course the community could decide that it is not wanted and issue a new policy, but it is not the case for now. If you feel like the user is after you, however, the issue is very different and what you should do if it persists is request the help of sysops/checkusers. It was not obvious to me that there was a pattern against you, but I may have missed it of course. My (unrequested, I know) personal suggestion would be: give it some time to see how it evolves. --Eusebius (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you might be surprised how Focus Finder's voting patterns have evolved. Of the 33 instances I can find of Focus Finder votes in QI and QI archives these are the results
Support/Promote 16 (in favour of Taxicross = 9)
Oppose/Decline 17 (adverse to Taxicross = 0)

Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And whose socketpuppet should Focus finder be? Feel free to make a motion for checkuser if you have a valid suspicion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way your analyze is not correct, Focus finder also opposed my picture; in case of Taxicross = Taxiarchos228. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
My analysis is correct enough to draw a simple conclusion; it is your interpretation of that conclusion that is in error. I was pointing out the fact that whatever issue the sockpuppet had with you now seems to be resolved. At a minimum he is no longer targetting just you. Regardless, I couldn't care less who the sockpuppet is, but I do find it a sad commentary that one even exists in a community like this.Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, but sadly Focus finder is not the only one. Without correlation to an other user the suspicion of socketpuppeting is quite useless. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot forgot image[edit]


The bot archived [5] but didn't add the QI template on the image [6]. Why is this?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I already detected this and informed Dschwen who is the programmer of this bot. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I wrote about this in the other discussion page. Several images were omitted.--MrPanyGoff 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
And breakdown again today, second time within a few days. First error not yet repaired. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
and today 3.rd time that QI-bot has a breakdown, now three passes of archiving are not done. sorry, but IMO we had to stop QI completely and immediately until this problem is fixed --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but did YOU, Taxiarchos228, alone, decided to stop and delete the QIC page ? If yes, are you sure it is the good way to do ? Where did you find the right to do that ? I'm very surprised !--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did. What is the alternative? Letting run the disaffected bot and have hundreds of not labeled pictures that can't be archived manually because this process is to complex? What is the sense of promoting QI if there is not reliable mechanism to handle with them? Non. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I suggest consulting the bot owner first if this is a sensible step, if you have not done so already? As I understand the error is due to a toolserver database error, which is outside the reach and responsibility of the bot owner to take care of. By commenting out the nominations, you may (I do not know) make the bots tasks impossible and confuse it when the toolserver database becomes operational again. --Slaunger (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ehm shutting down the page because a bot doesn't work is stupid. You can better shut the bot down, and not archive nominations, until the bot is fixed. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
.Feel free to initiate a better solution. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Slaunger: the bot owner Dschwen is already consulted but he can't do nothing [7]. Server problems. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I referred to consulting the bot owner regarding the interplay between the bot (once operational) and removing all nomination from QIC. It appears to me that commenting out all nominations is a decision you have taken independt of that? --Slaunger (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Shutting it down doesn't seem inpossible to me? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So? Let's fix the omitted photos manually by adding the template „QI“ and placing them in the relevant categories.--MrPanyGoff 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I did that allready for the images I nominated. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If this page must be shut down temporarily, let's please make this clear with a bold note at the top. Until I saw this discussion, I was confused. And if I was, others probably are too. Jonathunder (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lost promoted image[edit]

One promoted image be me got lost in this trouble. Will the bot fix that? The manual attempt by Basvb was not done for my image. --High Contrast (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Same problem with nominated by me and later promoted picture. Will the bot fix this or do we have to do it manually? --Iifar (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've searched in the archive: Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2011 for omitted images and I added the „QI“ template and then I placed them in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted. --MrPanyGoff 22:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

same problem with my nominated image of 6 november and promoted. Have I to do it myself? --Moonik (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I talk about of this file, it's desapeared from QIC, and even from November archiv list of QIC !!! --Moonik (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm that last thing is new, I guess MrPanyGoff only did the archived ones. I would suggest do it yourself if you find one with a difflink so that it shows you're adding it to a real promoted image. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I did it only for promoted images in this archive Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2011. Are there any nominated photos which were not placed in the archive? If yes, how to be sure about them and their status: promoted, opposed or neither? There is one more problem: Some of the initially correctly promoted images of this archive are not placed by the QIBot in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted for further categorization.--MrPanyGoff 08:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Large amount of promoted pics were removed yesterday from QI candidates list and they did not get the QI status. --Iifar (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed without being placed in the archives?--MrPanyGoff 09:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. --Iifar (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Here the first edit of the three unfinished bot-runs: (12.11.), (14.11), (16.11.) --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that photos from (16.11.) QICbot-session are gone. The other two are placed in the archives and I fixed almost all of them (promoted ones). If there are no other suggestions, I can start placing the photos from (16.11.) in the archives with their status as it is shown in this traces.--MrPanyGoff 09:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the bot shut down yet until it's fixed? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Dschwen said the problem is not with the bot but with the server. However for shuting down the but you need as far as I know a legitimation which I have not. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
November 17 also done, cheers ;) --MrPanyGoff 20:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks a bunch for taking care of this. I'm currently super swamped with other IRL work. Just a quick tip for manually fixing the screw ups: Just reinsert the unfinished candidates back onto the candidate page. When I have a little more time I'll try to think of a simple way to fix bot screw-ups. --Dschwen (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Seems QICbot stopped his run today at 12:03, images were not promoted. PierreSelim (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The logs show:
HTTPError: 500 Internal Server Error
WARNING: Could not open ''.
    • I suggest we stop the bot for now. This is obviously not as helpful as I intended the bot to be (and as it has worked for the past four and a half years). I have to figure out how to deal with the issue of unreliable severs in a more graceful way. Unfortunately this makes my life a lot more complicated :-( --Dschwen (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
but in this case I would propose not to nominate new QI candidates because the backlog would rise and rise, especially because it is not measurable how long it will take to repair the bot bring the server into shape --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot is not broken, the servers are. --Dschwen (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Another promoted image by me was lost during this time. What shall I do? Will it be fixed automatically? --High Contrast (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Known process to propose a promoted QI for delisting?[edit]


Is there any known process for challenging the QI status of an already promoted picture? This file: File:Moscow-Bolshoi-Theare-1.jpg has a stitching error that is even noticeable in the preview size located on the fourth window from the right of the upper row. I'd like to delist it as a QI as I think that it fails the guidelines by a wide margin. How shall I proceed, maybe by asking for a consensual review even if the promotion is already in the archive? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • No, there is no such process (but there should be, imo) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The first step I suggest is digging up the original promotion discussion (was is consensual or a simple promotion?). Read it and, then just boldly put it up for a new CR. Link to the original discussion and explain why you think the image doe not meet the guidelines. I think key is doing this in a friendly and non-confrontational way. Then I really do not see a problem here. If people for some reason thonk this should still be a QI they can just state their reasons. No need to draw up a lengthy set of rules here. I think we can afford a little bit of flexibility ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    OK, I'll go for the consensual review. It should be fuss-free, the promotion was based on a single opinion for promoting. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest that a QI that has it's status challenged may be proposed for delisting by asking for a consensual review, as long as the original promotion was not based upon a consensual review in the first place. Do we need a two-third- oder a 50% + 1 vote majority for a successful plea for delisting? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I support that, as I supported de-listing in the past. 50%+1 would be the simple and easy way. --ELEKHHT 03:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose QI was designed as a one way process, with the purpose to promote photographs by the community that address our need for good images of all subjects not just the photogenic ones. The process creates a history to show the developement of image quality over time, with the exception of malicious promotions QI shouldnt be reversed. Gnangarra 10:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • This is ignoring the fact that people make mistakes and that pictures can be promoted erroneously. Also this particular case is not about the picture not being photogenic or the standards having evolved past the picture. It is about an obvious technical flaw that caused the picture to be below standard from the get go. I principle I agree that QI should be a one way process and that is why I would oppose any extension of the rules to add a formal delisting process. But ideology should not stand in the way of correcting mistakes. --Dschwen (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
      • 22,000 23,000 images promoted one mistake not a bad ratio but the creation of "delisting process" isnt necessary when a very occassional mistake can be fixed by talking to the person who reviewed it and the author. Gnangarra 22:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You know there wasn't just "one" mistake. --ELEKHHT 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
        • This is already wasting too much time on such a small issue. And apparently some people cannot even read/process the comments they are "replying" to. --Dschwen (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's go ahead: I suggest that we allow a query for consensual review up to 3 months after a QI promotion that was itself not based upon a CR in the first place but only on the opinion of a lone reviewer and solely in cases where the challenger contests the technical quality. Older cases of possibly erroneous promotions are to be dealt with a case-by-case decision. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • One thing I'd strongly suggest adding to any procedure if this goes ahead is a requirement to inform to uploader / original nominator. They have an interest in their own image after all, and they are not likely to see any delisting discussion here unless notified (or if they check here constantly). Procedures for what should be done are also a good idea, "I disagree with this promotion from last week, which I voted against at the time; so I'm going to get it knocked back now" smacks of petty vindictiveness (even if correct on point). Being able to challenge lone reviews is where the process should start.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lost images[edit]

I understand that a promoted image - File:Carved angel - Johann Baptist Moroder-Lusenberg.jpg - I posted on November 13, 2011 is not there any more. How can this happen? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's at the 4 november section. I think it's waiting processing while the bot is broken, but that means it's not commented (so not promoted?). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with the QIbot[edit]

There was something wrong with the QIbot at November 12. Some of the photos here just disappeared without being promoted. What happens to those photos? -- 22:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They have to be fixed by hand, and I believe that was done. Please link the ones which should be promoted (or promote them with a link to the archives). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Good point! An image by me that was promoted was not tagged by the bot (this file File:River Vils with broad-leaved trees in Autumn.JPG with the nomination descr. of "The River Vils with broad-leaved trees in Autumn"). Basvb, can you please add the correct QI-badge, etc,please? I think it might look strange if I add the QI-ornaments by myself on my own file. Would be great. Cheers, High Contrast (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

recent QICbot troubles[edit]

As many of you may have noticed, the QICbot was running anything but smoothly. The wikimedia servers were returning errors, causing the bot to abort mid-run. I just got off IRC where developer Roan Kattouw looked into the matter. We reproduced the error and Roan narrowed it down to a memory leak in the wikitext parser on the wikimedia servers (basically memory was allocated for each image on one particularly large page the bot has to visit). Roan fixed the leak and it looks like that solved the problem with the bot. I'm reactivating regular runs and keep my fingers crossed. Thank's a bunch Roan! --Dschwen (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for handling. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion by discounting opposers and not disclosing closer identity[edit]

Is this acceptable?. --ELEKHHT 08:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you really surprised ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, is not the first time? My assumption was that (1) nominators should not promote their own image (2) closers should sign the CR (3) maths should be done properly (1+1=2) etc. and (4) votes should not be striked out based on non-consensual interpretation of ambiguous rules, which however should have been fixed per above discussion at Commons talk:Quality images candidates#CR closures. --ELEKHHT 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I perceived Jebulons comment as ironic.... But I think you are right, Elekhh, that the self-promotion example given is not acceptable and shall be reverted. --Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You are both right... And my comment was indeed ironic.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not self promoted my picture but adopted rules. It is the same like counting votes at the end of a candidature and infixing a promoted or decline tag. Elekhhs commend is furthermore tendentious because he simply conceal that I also discounted the vote of a supporter. Elekhh says that he will not carry out some kind of bureaucracy but his behavior and statements are in fact bureaucracy and makeing mountains out of molehills. Quite absurd. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Bureaucracy is discarding valid argument because they are added after some time, which is ambiguously defined in the guidelines. The rule in the guideline that "After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed" safeguards against spurious votes tipping a decision. I suggest we make it explicit in the guidelines, that no votes may be discarded or considered too late to avoid future confusion regarding this. --Slaunger (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Bringing assumptions like "self-promotion" should be done very carefully because they imply fraud and this one could be understood as a viciously affront. Self-promotion would be this one if this action of was done on purpose but I guess it was just a lapse. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed that user does some confusing edits. But back to the subject: "self-promotion" was just a shorter way to express "promotion of own (self-created and self-nominated) image". I am not native English speaker either, so if your interpretation is confirmed I have no problem in revising that. But it will not change the facts, and maybe you wish to clarify weather you consider that your edit all in order? --ELEKHHT 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

ELEKHH, are you trying to play the policeman? The edit by this user is ok! 17:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea what do you mean. Have you read the above? --ELEKHHT 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
And again
  • So everybody ok with these (COI closure, wrong maths, no signature)? --ELEKHHT 12:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Reverted this. From the edit summary I understand that it was an error, but a triple error for the second time. This can be avoided if you stop promoting your own nominations in the future. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • personal considerations should not be part of a functional talk page and it is not task of this page to document the faults of other users, if it is I will document yours in the future --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Please do not make threats like that. You appear to have been promting your own images from a quick reading of this page. That seems plainly wrong to me and others in the community. There is nothing wrong with this discussion being here. Do not remove any part of it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
          • What is "promting" Maybe you mean "promoting", I closed a finished candidate and made a mistake. This page is not for personal considerations. If Elekhh thinks my behavior is not acceptable he should shift to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems‎. Here is the wrong place for nonsense. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • 3 vs 2 or 4 vs 2 seems like a small mistake indeed, doesn't change the result, but maybe it's indeed better if the one that nominated and asked for discussion doesn't close it as well. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No, in this second case it was in fact 3 vs 3 (as per my reading) instead of 4 vs 2 as closed by Taxiarchos228. This "update", as the previous one, came without signing, leaving the total as if would have been done by another user. And according to his latest note on my talk page has the intention to continue doing so. So far it has been de facto accepted as common sense for nominators not to close their own nomination given the potential conflict of interest, but now it seems we need to make it into written rule. In any case I would greatly appreciate if the community would handle this, as I am very tired of Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw verbal aggressions against me and his attempt of presenting it as if it would be a personal dispute. --ELEKHHT 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Stick to the truth, Elekhh. The origin status of counting was 3:2. My fault was looking on a wrong other candidate where the first statement was pro that was not labeled by an icon. But I am sick of your assumption and your aggressive and your stroppy behavior. I got already some mails of other users complaining about you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In general, editors should not close discussions in which they participate. In rare cases, it may be necessary and/or appropriate, but the closing editor in such cases should not be surprised by a challenge. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      • In general there is no need to make mountains out of molehills. Closing a candidate means adopting documented rules; nothing more or less. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)