Commons talk:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons talk:Quality images)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Quality images candidates.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Older: 2007-01, 2007-02, 2010-01, 2010-02, 2011-01, 2012-01, Commons talk:Quality images

Proposing extra daily nominations for active reviewers

[edit]

I propose that we allow those active in reviewing nominations to nominate up to an additional 5 images per day as long as they are reviewing more images than they are nominating. This would be a way to say thank you for extra review work, and to encourage those that are regularly submitting five daily QI candidates to do more reviewing. We can keep track of this by Commons:Quality images candidates/statistics - basically anyone who is in green there would have the extra nomination slots. This should be self-balancing - it wouldn't cause extra work for other reviewers, since at least an equal number of nominations would be reviewed, and the additional nominations would also count against review counts in the statistics. Thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea, especially if this can be tracked automatically - clearly from the perspective of an overall dearth of reviews, and some reviews with little effort made to provide constructive feedback before opposing promotion, more needs to be done in this regard! SM:!) (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support A good motivation to review more. MB-one (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this seems to be a good idea Kritzolina (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate that. --Plozessor (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this might be an interesting idea, I suggest retaining a hard limit of 10 images per user and day to avoid flooding of the candidate list by very few highly active users. There is another issue. The number of quality images per day is currently mostly above 100 and the suggestion to weaken the limit of 5 images per user and day could raise the numbers considerably. This would also increase the workload on Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted for the very few people who sort quality images on this page. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with the hard limit, which is part of the original suggestion ("up to an additional 5 images per day"). Plozessor (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I think we should stick to five per day for any user. Also very active users an benefit from being forced to select only their best images. --August Geyler (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test run?

[edit]

It seems like this idea has support, how about doing a test run over the couse of a month? Perhaps we should trial it during August and see how it goes? Or is it better to avoid the summer, and pick a month like September? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think we should not even test this, because every user should gave the same amount of nominations and it is part of the idea of QIC beeing forced to select only the best images. August Geyler (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I suppose that there might be an issue to resolve before testing this. Today the script shows 6 nominations and 3 reviews or votes for me. I counted the images with comments or votes from me and my nominated images on the current page and in the last seven archive pages (June 28 to July 4) and I found seven nominations and six votes / commented images. Could you please check again whether your script counts correctly? Thanks --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We talk a lot about reviewing as an important way of participation in the QI process. But there are also other important ways of participation, mainly maintenance tasks, like adding the recently promoted images to the relvant galleries and categories. These things are less visible, but I would like to mention the super important work of Radomianin, Robert Flogaus-Faust and some others here. As Robert already pointed out, people doing this kind of maintenance are the ones who will see a direct increase of their workload due to any changes of the nomination limits. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points. I wonder if there's repetitive parts of those tasks that could be automated to reduce the workload? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been discussed before, and one of the suggestions was that suitable galleries (and categories) could be entered when nominating the images. However, this was rejected as too time-consuming, among other things with the argument that the galleries would be obsolete in the near future anyway, as everything would soon be done automagically via wikidata. --Smial (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think galleries are more or less obsolete already - but QIC bot still thinks they are important and stops working once too many files are unsorted. At least to my understanding. Kritzolina (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I remember, switching off or reprogramming the bot was also not done because it would be too much effort. Perhaps it would help to simply submit deletion requests for all gallery pages, and to delete the "unaccessed QIC" category at the same time? --Smial (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support this. QICbot might either crash or just continue moving images to Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted, even if nothing happens there ever. AFAIK, QICbot will not stop working if Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted becomes larger, but categorizing the images would become increasingly difficult. Assignment to the gallery pages is also used to update the sample galleries on Commons:Quality images, which is a nice showcase for quality images IMO. If you know how to automatically archive gallery pages (e.g. once a year), this might be a more useful approach. Anyway, I would not risk deletion of any of these galleries unless QICbot is changed so that it does not use them any more. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can change QICbot, that part shouldn't be a problem, focus on what would help improve the process. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that wasn't a serious suggestion on my part, but a kind of sarcasm. I'm quite familiar with the problems with gallery pages that are too large. I bravely categorized them in the past, but gave up because of my unreliable and slow internet connection at home. Nowadays, when I split up and archive gallery pages that have become too big, I occasionally do it at work. I can't say whether it's worth programming a bot for this, because it doesn't take much effort to do it manually. Someone just has to do it. --Smial (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and thanks for your contributions to image categorization. If you look at the statistics, it is rather unlikely that there would be too many extra images at the moment. So the increased number of quality images might not be a major issue. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video eligibility?

[edit]

I procedurally declined a video by @Grendelkhan: as I understand that these are out of scope here (it's quality images, not quality media; see June 12, 2024 noms). They replied making a good counter-point, though: "There are twenty-one quality images which are videos (see PetScan PSID 28631120; I can't make external links work here); if this is a policy, I haven't been able to find where it's written" - thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel No idea about an official policy, but I did the same (decline a video) because it's Quality images. Plozessor (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Commons:Quality images is sufficiently clear that quality images are images, not videos. The videos that were promoted anyway were promoted erroneously. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would make sense to, much as there's COM:FPC and COM:FMC, create "Quality video candidates" or "Quality media candidates", with its own set of criteria and processes, and legacy-move existing videos into the resultant category? grendel|khan grendel|khan 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FMC currently doesn't have enough participants, so better not to create another contest. Yann (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Perhaps explicitly set out specific criteria for video? grendel|khan 20:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another QICBot failure

[edit]

Apparently, QICbot failed to remove the promoted and declined candidates from the candidate list - once again. What can be done here? Can someone run a script that removes everything from the candidate list that is in the most recent archive or should that be done manually? Is it possible to change QICbot so that it tries again removing images from the candidate list (with some delay) after an edit conflict instead of just continuing with an error? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an edit conflict with @Jakubhal: . It should archive them when it runs tomorrow. The only other solution I can think of would be an edit conflict at this point stopping the whole bot run for the day. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. They were archived already, i.e. the images would be archived twice and also moved to the page for the recently promoted QIs twice (if they were promoted). I am going to remove the archived images from the candidate list. Quite a lot of work, but if the bot is unable to postpone its task and if there is no tool to fix this kind of bot failure, then this is much easier than deleting the images from the list of promoted images. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review statistics not updated since June 22nd

[edit]

@Mike Peel Thanks for setting up an maintaining QIC review statistics. It's really a great motivation for me, to contribute more. However, the site has not been updated since 4 days now. Wasn't it supposed to be updated daily? Cheers, MB-one (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MB-one: That's really odd, it looks like it ran OK in the last run, and I've just manually run it without it reporting any issues. It must have seen something in the page that caused it to error out, but I don't know what since it must no longer be there. Let's see if it happens again...? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel Thanks for checking. Seems to be working again. MB-one (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates&oldid=895293421"