Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Unassessed QI candidates

Per discussion at Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates it seems that this maintenance category is not needed since no action is expected to take place after passing through the QI process without getting an assesment. As such, it should probably be deleted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the category back in 2006, I think at someone else's suggestion, with text "This category contains images which have been nominated for inclusion in Commons:Quality Images but have not received assessments to either promote or decline after 15 days or more at Commons:Quality images candidates." It might have been of use in the early days of Commons, but I have no objection to deletion now. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• AFAIK QICBot adds images to this category. If you just delete it, the category might be added in red to unassessed QIs unless QICBot is changed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  True. Pinging the bot operator, @Dschwen: to make sure they're aware of this discussion. Also see the suggestion at Commons talk:Quality images candidates that the bot changes to relisting the nominations rather than moving them to this category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not happy with the suggestion of automated relisting. It is unlikely that many of these images get promoted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert Flogaus-Faust: I find it sad that so many images have been nominated and have gone through this process without any response. I'd much prefer if they were declined if they aren't meeting QI status. Others think differently though. However, this discussion is whether this maintenance category should be deleted, which it sounds like you'd support? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'd favor deletion, too, as I agree with User:Smial in the linked thread that nominators can make up their own minds about whether to renominate them or not. I think the reason why most of the photos in this category are never rated is probably that no-one can decide whether to promote them or decline them. I know I've sometimes bowed out of rating a photo because I couldn't make up my mind. They could be moved to CR, but it's possible there will be cases in which no-one votes on them there, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• +1 --Smial (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of disagree. I think it is still useful, if there is a way to look up which QI candidates went completely unassessed. I however think a category might not be the optimal solution for this. As I see it, this would be a good use for structured data. The wikidata:Property:P6731 with the value wikidata:Q63348069 is added, when an image is determined as QI. In case of unassessed QI candidates, we could add this as a new value and automatically add it to the unassessed ones.

This way I could use a SPARQL query to search for my unassessed QI candidates, if I wanted to. FlocciNivis (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I think it serves as a handy tool for nominators. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you browsing a category with 23k images in it to look for renomination candidates? Are you somehow sorting new ones from old? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but it's much better than manually digging through the QI archive to tell if the nomination was rejected, withdrawn or unassessed. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I use PetScan, like so. It's useful to me to have it. grendel|khan 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgot about this thread.
  In terms of the quality of a candidate, being unassessed is the same as being declined in the vast majority of cases. We have a lot more people who only ever promote, comment, or abstain, than people willing to decline. Being unassessed usually means a few people looked at it, and none of them thought it should be QI.
  There are some exceptions, though. For example, if a nominator responds to someone's criticism, because of the way QIC is structured the person who provided criticism doesn't get a ping. It has happened to me multiple times that I've addressed a problem but nobody noticed before time ran out. Upon renominating, they typically pass.
  Of course, none of this has anything to do with the category. I agree with those who have said they don't see the purpose. In terms of the QIC rules, there's no difference between something that has never been nominated and something that's renominated after being unassessed. You can nominate them just the same. So I guess I'm in the  Delete camp. That said, I certainly don't object to using structured data for this. I think we should be doing that more. Using structured data would mean more easily being able to say, for example, "show me unassessed candidates with more than one version" to find those where someone may have fixed a problem, or "show me unassessed candidates sorted by when they were nominated" or something. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And I don't really care much about this category, even though it can be useful and give you a hint whether a previously nominated image got declined or whether it was an unassessed candidate, only by looking at the entry of the file, without a tedious search in the respective QI candidate archive. Nevertheless, this category may be deleted if it annoys anyone as soon as QICBot stops adding imagex to it (after which it would be useless anyway). Before that happens, I am strongly in the  Keep camp. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]