Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 11

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

Daily limit?

QI project has a banner limiting nominations to 5 per day. With fewer contributors/voters at VI, should we have a limit here of 3 per day? Charles (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we have an issue with too many nominations now? If not this seems to a solution is search of a problem... Yann (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Martinvl (talk)
5 images were nominated by one user today/yesterday. Charles (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Illustrating Women, Filling the Gaps

Hi, This is a new project which also concerns COM:VI. Please help fill in Category:Valued images of women. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued image set candidates

Any word on the return of Valued image sets? Philip Terry Graham (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing page

Why is there no Commons:Valued image candidates/Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg page? I want to oppose the nomination and make the point that of the 3 photos from that view, File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg, which is bigger than the nominated File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg and in better light than File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Gebouw bij centrale Malga Mare 01.jpg, would appear to be best in scope. However, I really don't understand the scope, because what does "Business surface" mean? The most useful view of this side of the building, though viewed from a different angle, is actually File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 45.jpg, so I would consider that that picture should be the VI, although the scope needs to be restated in clear English. But how do I actually vote and put this in the review, when the review page is a red link? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I took a look at this and see that the problem is that the candidate page was created for "File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg", but after creation was internally modified by another editor to point to the ...42.jpg file (in this edit) without renaming the candidate page to match, and so was corrupted. So the link is red because it's looking for a *42 candidate page, which doesn't exist. DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DeFacto. So what's the solution? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: there is a choice of two possibilities as I see it. 1) change it all back, 2) rename the candidate page to match the contents. We possibly need input from the nominator to know what they want to do and of the second editor to know why the change was made. DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Agnes, any input? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I have corrected the description of the image. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

VIs of age-dependent images

@Olivier LPB: @Ikan Kekek: @Archaeodontosaurus: @Smihael: @Palauenc05: @Berthold Werner: @Moheen Reeyad: @Jacek Halicki: @Famberhorst: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Lucasbosch: @Llez: @Jebulon: @Moroder: @DeFacto: @Halavar: @JLPC: @Lucas.Belo: @Yann: @FredD: @Palauenc05: @Carschten: @Masum-al-hasan: @Slaunger: @Martin Falbisoner: @Smihael:

How should we define scopes of age-related images? Animals are quite simple. Adult is the default and is not mentioned - we have immature, juvenile, baby and I had one Equus quagga burchellii (Burchell's zebra) male, one day old. But what about things that decay - especially people. There are a lot of VIs being promoted of people. In many cases these local politicians who are 'notable' only for a short time, but what about Winston Churchill, Mick Jagger, Shirley Temple or HM The Queen? There could hundreds for each. Don't we need some better guidelines: both on who is 'entitled' to a VI and how many each should have? Charles (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there should be more than 2 or 3 VI for any single person. Usually one for young age, one for mature age, 3 different periods in special cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Yann's got it. But no hard and fast rule, because in some cases, it could be valuable to show actors playing a dozen roles or more in different costumes and makeup (but that's not quite the same as age-defined differences in scope). I don't know, I think no standardization is necessary. What I would propose is simply that each scope defined by age be recognizably different from the others. I think juvenile monkeys are quite recognizably different from infant monkeys, but I don't think that we should normally have a different scope for a 12-month-old human baby and a 13-month-old human baby. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If the scopes of different ages are 'visually distinct' they are acceptable. Visually distinct is somewhat fuzzy I know, but I think it is quite line with the statements of Yann and Ikan Kekek above. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a numerical limit, but that the criterion should be that they are visually distinct. So a bearded/unbearded portrait or various ages or various states of decay, or whatever - just so long as there is a potential use and an agreed (per the vote) visual difference. DeFacto (talk). 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that each image should bring its peculiarities that differentiate it from the others, and the age can be a differential in an image. But standardizing the number of images already awarded can be harmful if a new image has many attributes. Good judgment in this case should be considered, avoiding the loss of an image of value and the exaggeration in the number of winning images of the same person with the same hetary range. I believe that this posture is relevant to the notoriety of images with value and good scopes. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Still no one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

When the person is notable enough to have (or could have) a Wikipedia article, then a (good) portrait of this person is be valuable for Commons as it can be used in the accompanying article given that other VI criteria are met. The picture does not necessarily have to portray the person as we might remember him/her – often it is the case, that pictures of famous persons in their youth are also interesting. --Miha (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Determining scope on multiple images of individual persons

After the failed nom on one image of Donald Tusk and on images of Neil Patrick Harris, maybe I need help on determining an appropriate scope on bio pictures before re-nominating them. If helping on individual nominations is ineffective, how do we handle images that belong in similar categories? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In the case of Neil Patrick Harris, I think it is very silly to move all images into subcategories. It makes choosing an image for an article (and for VI) very difficult. In the case of Donald Tusk, the best solution is to create a category Category:Portraits of Donald Tusk, and copy all portraits there. Then a candidate can be chosen among them. See an example of a VI for a person with many potential candidates. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Created Category:Portrait photographs of Donald Tusk. I'll re-nominate this soon. Thanks for the advice. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Mother Theresa 18.jpg

Hi, This is not an image of Mother Theresa, see [1]. Is it OK to remove the VI tag? @Archaeodontosaurus, Moheen Reeyad, Dencey, and Jacek Halicki: Regards, Yann (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Withholding a vote of a photo you believe should be a VI

Can everyone please respect the consensus that currently being used outside of Commons is not a criterion for whether a photo should be promoted to Valued Image? If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper. Can we all please stop doing that? This kind of behavior corrodes the project and the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And so as not to have an oblique and theoretical discussion, have a look at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that adding rules that don't exist merely results in exactly what Ikan Kekek just said. This is true in VI, Commons, any other wiki project, our real life paying jobs, real life organizations we belong to, etc. I would also like to say that I truly appreciate all the people who've been helping me learn the ins and outs of VI; they know who they are as I've thanked them before. But on this one issue we should be more "in the same boat". PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
We must have the right to vote in compliance with the rules we have all agreed to. Voting should not be mandatory, we are not robots who record appointments. I maintain that I do not wish to vote for unused images, has a personal choice that only conspects me. I have also chosen not to intervene on subjects that I do not know. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely with Archaeodontosaurus. I also try not to get involved with images of subjects I have no expertise in, which includes those of plants and insects. As individuals too, we all have our own personal preferences and dislikes, and points of view as to what "the most valuable illustration" must be, or must not be. There is no rule broken in deciding, based on personal criteria, not to support an image nomination, or even in deciding to oppose one. DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys are intent on enforcing through the back door a proposed rule that was shot down by consensus? This isn't about likes or dislikes in terms of the picture itself. This is a case in which you believe the picture is best in scope and deserves to be a VI, but you refuse to vote for it for extraneous reasons that are specifically excluded by consensus as criteria. It's specifically and pointedly an attempt to sabotage the Wiki guideline of respecting and operating in good faith as part of a consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ikan is spot on here. PumpkinSky talk 09:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: no, I do not support usage being a mandated VI requirement, and was happy that rule proposal was rejected. However, what I do support is the right of an editor to decide for themselves whether they consider an image to be "the most valuable illustration" within the given scope - which is a very subjective decision anyway - and whether they will support it. And it is quite reasonable to expect a rationale for an 'oppose' vote, but I'm not sure we should be demanding a justification for not giving a 'support' vote. DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. It's not likely to be possible to force anyone to vote for a photo they believe deserves to be a VI, but do you really disagree that good faith demands that people take it upon themselves to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
They are free to do so if they want, as I am free to vote or not. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but with all due respect to all of the really helpful things you do, you are acting in bad faith in these kinds of situations, and it is unhelpful to the project and to sustaining the Wiki spirit of moving forward by consensus. In effect, you are being passive-aggressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
We agree that we must rely on consensus. I do not think that imposing a vote, mandatory and positive, is a consensual idea.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that anyone be forced to vote. I'm suggesting that by withholding your vote for a photo you believe should be a VI, you are operating in bad faith, and that anyone who thinks a photo should be a VI, as a matter of integrity and Wiki spirit, needs to take it upon themselves to vote for that photo without extraneous reservations based on a proposed new policy that was shot down. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion that comes from Surrealism. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you truly not understand my point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This suggestion is a very interesting intellectual construction that can make us discuss for hours, I am very admiring the surreal movement, but there is no psosibility that there can be an action in reality. You can not get into people's minds and their vote remains free. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, people remain free to act in what I consider bad faith, according to their conscience. I don't understand why you're focusing on that, rather than the substance of what I brought up at the very beginning of this thread, which is not "people should be made by force to vote for x, y and z" but "If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper." The onus falls on every individual to act within the spirit as well as the letter of the consensus and not deliberately undermine it by behaving as if your losing position is an additional unwritten rule. I think it's quite unfortunate that no-one else but PumpkinSky agrees with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My position has a meaning, that is the point that you did not address. I try to encourage photographers to get involved in the content of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is the purpose of our work. The vast majority of images we have in COMMONS is useless, hence the label; But it is not the label that will make "live" the image is its use that will do it. If you believe in the usefulness of your images, then submit to the reality of placement of the image in the encyclopedias. If it "survives": it has an effective utility. It is better an actual and proven reality than a reality that is supposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First, no, Wikipedia is not the only reason for the VI designation. Creative Commons images can be used on any website with attribution. Second, requiring an image to be put into a Wikipedia article before it's determined to be best in scope puts the cart before the horse. The whole point, in my mind, is to determine which is best, whereupon it would make sense for a thumbnail of it to be used in appropriate articles. But third, there is a huge difference between encouraging people to insert thumbnails into articles and making that insertion a prerequisite for VI status, which is the very thing that was roundly voted down when proposed on this very page. By all means, encourage. That's fine, but it's missing the point of this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious nothing has changed at VI and likely won't. Very sad. PumpkinSky talk 10:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I've only just come across this discussion. I generally only vote on images that interest me and when I can be bothered to check out all the images in the category gallery. I will sometimes help establish rules for other subjects (such as motor cars). I will not generally vote for photos of people (see previous discussions). Nothing would compel me to vote if I don't want to. Charles (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Valued images and thumbnail size [Unarchived thread]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a file rename note required somewhere?

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

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

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

Was ist ein wertvolles Bild?

Hallo miteinander,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Files from Wiki Science Competition 2017

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

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

VICbot failing again

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

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

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

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

I've found a clue to a problem

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

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

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

Problem in VI

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

Problems of irregularity

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

How do we do reverse the promotion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Archaeodontosaurus, can you explain your point further please as I cannot see the timing problems you mention. This image was nominated at 13:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC) and the last vote was at 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC). I closed it at 17:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC) which was 7 days and 4 hours after it was nominated and more than 2 days and 15 hours after the last vote. The rules say that it can be closed 7 days after nomination and 2 days after the last vote. Also it had 2 supports and 1 oppose which does give a "promoted" result. -- DeFacto (talk). 01:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Mein Englisch ist nicht gut. Wenn ich es aber recht verstehe, geht es darum, ob ich mein positives Votum aufrechterhalte, obwohl der Scope geändert wurde. Dazu sage ich: Ja. Der Scope ist für mich relativ unbedeutend. Mir kommt es darauf an, ob ich ein Bild für wertvoll erachte oder nicht. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The subject is closed, in good conditions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we can let the promotion stand. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Limit for nominations?

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

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

Changing a valued image

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

  • Current valued image
    Current valued image
  • Image that I would like to nominate
    Image that I would like to nominate

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

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

File:Hörnum Odde 2017.jpg was promoted but got no tag. What´s wrong or to do? --Milseburg (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question, I say almost a month later. How do we add the tag? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I tagged it by hand. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I see how you did that. I think it would be good not to archive this discussion, in case this comes up again, so people know where to look to see how to add the tag. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

VICbot problem

Closed VI nominations are not currently being processed by VICbot, so I have reported the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Papaver oriëntale. Locatie, Tuinen Mien Ruys 02.jpg / Papaver somniferum 01.JPG

@Jcb: @Famberhorst: We have an image that seems to be promoted for this scope Papaver somniferum 01.JPG. It is indeed Papaver orientale, the scope for which it seems promoted is wrong. It should be downgraded. What can we propose? Would it be equitable to pass a MVR? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it already failed in a MVR because of exactly this, but nobody actually turned {{VI}} into {{VI-former}}. --El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
If you know the procedure it would be useful to do it --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Misidentified Promoted Image

I am also a similar problem Charles has with this current MVR. I found out some time ago one of my photos may be misidentified, specifically this one File:Daniel Carter Beard Bridge Crossing.jpg. I had a chance to look into it the other week, agreed and had it renamed. Problem is it was promoted with a VI scope that is wrong now. I didn't know how to fix it properly so I'm in the same predicament Charles is in. How does one fix this manually? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: I just attempted to create a MVR to correct the error and replace the incorrectly promoted scope but I am not sure it was done right as this was my first MVR. Could you take a look at the formatting and make sure I have it done correctly? Thank you very much, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In the state I do not think that it works, the two images must not have the same name. The first must be independent of the second image. For the Bot it will not work. You could take the advice of User:Christian Ferrer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO there is too much difference between the new and former scope because 1. this is not the same bridge and 2. the new/second bridge has only one deck. I think we should cancel the first nomination, remove the VI tag from the file and possibly make a new nomination in the scope of your choice. That said, this is just my opinion and nothing mandatory, but in case the "scope" is changed the first thing is to notify the person who supported the former promotion. @Ikan Kekek: . Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am simply for whatever solves the problem. One VI tag isn't that important where I would rather fix the issue. Having a photo of mine be of a bridge that is a VI for a different bridge is far more bothersome to me. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
ok let's wait what Ikan has to say. But "top deck" in the new scope is not adequate as there is only one deck. I also don't understand the rest of the scope "Ohio River crossing into Kentucky" as I don't see the Ohio River but this may be a language misunderstanding from me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Just in regards to the scope. I agree. And It should be changed. I could be mistaken but I believe this was one of my first VI's and my view of a scope was far more verbose then I see it now. The other day I just simply copied and pasted the previous scope with the corrected name and category. I had been in a different time zone for a week, I apologize. If I was to write a new scope it would be Top of Daniel Carter Beard Bridge but I can wait to change it since Ikan may have an idea as well. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm also happy with whatever solves the problem. Thanks for the ping. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently added image is not displayed

…namely this one: Commons:Valued image candidates/DKW 4=8 V 1000 2-door sedan 1931.jpg What's wrong here? --Jacek79✇✇ 16:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again: scope

I see that this has been touched upon multiple times, and if I read in the archives, I feel that this has become even worse now: the current practice how scopes are defined (and approved!) are far away from the defined rules. For example, the rules say that "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope", but we see promoted pictures with a scope of a single side altar, a single painting, or a single statue inside a church. About one third (!) of the past 3 days' nominations had a scope which was so narrow and tailored-to-fit that they ware the only image that matched. Nominated images are usually promoted with 1:0 votes, and in the rare cases where a promotion is refused, it's nearly all the times done so for formal reasons ("scope does not link to a category page"). Any assessment of whether the images are "especially valuable" or "of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain" is virtually absent.

If the goal of VI is to help users find the most valuable images for a given topic, the project fails completely. Currently, it helps users to find the images which somebody bothered to nominate here.

In case people hope to attract more contributors to this project by approving as many nominations as possible, I believe that the opposite is true. Why should I nominate an image here if the promotion is worth virtually nothing?

FWIW, I do agree that the rules as they are written now are very strict, but how it's handled in practice is way too lax. I would suggest defining reasonable rules (the idea about "must have a wikidata item" or "must have an own Wikipedia article in at least one language" is not so bad IMHO) and following them, if we want to make anything useful out of this initiative.

Thanks, --Reinhard Müller (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think current practice has evolved over time to reflect the passions, beliefs, experiences and wisdom of the Commoners most heavily involved with the project. I support that evolution as I think it keeps the project relevant and encourages the creation of an increasingly comprehensive resource. Yes, the written "rules" have not kept pace with the improved practices, and so are currently out-of-date. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider it worthwhile to update the description of the rules and explanatory pages around VI? From the view of a newcomer to the process, I find it extremely disturbing that you have to explicitly break the defined rules to even have a chance to get promoted. Thanks, --Reinhard Müller (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, the VI notes could be updated to tidy them up a bit, and particularly to remove the stuff that does not work. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I agree with Reinhard above. The scopes are often much too narrow.
With this new practice, VI is becoming useless. The purpose of VI is to help find the best image for a given subject. If even barely notable subjects can have 3 VI, what's the point?
I have proposed that a scope should have a corresponding Wikidate entry. And with Structured Commons, notability for a WD entry is going to be broader that it is now. That seems reasonable to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
The object is to describe the world and to make people love what we describe. If we are here it is that we are happy to serve this utopia.
Every monument, church, temple, town hall, has the right to be in wikipedia, to be quoted in an article to appear in image and as such to have a label.
Our rules are not so bad because the label works. They would need to be a little dusted punctually. The example that is given about the churches should be removed. And I would be in favor of imposing regulations that the proposed image be used at least once in a project. Nothing else.
The proper functioning is based on the scope. There is a need to pay special attention to the idea of ​​anticipating possible conflicts. There are 50 million images in COMMONS and 29000 labels VI there is no inflation, it is even the opposite.
The label works well because it relies above all on discussion and direct democracy. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: How many images on commons would you think would qualify as a VI if somebody nominated them? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I think a hard rule specifying an artificial condition, such as "must have a corresponding Wikidata entry" is too restrictive and will suppress the inclusion of valuable images. The point, in my view, is to pictorially record the world around us, and the more coverage we have, the more valuable the resource will be. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
What I read from this conversation is that the goal of VI is to get an assortment of images for each topic that covers as many views and aspects of the topic as completely as possible. Is this correct? This would be the exact opposite of how I actually understood the intention of VI: to mark the one single image for each topic that represents it best. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no contradiction in your reasoning. The problem is in the appreciation of what the subject is. If the subject is wide we are not risking much, if the subject is narrow we risk falling into elitism and no longer fulfill our role as illustrators. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree more with you and DeFacto than with Reinhard, but I would very much like to see an updated version of the VIC rules for us to consider. While the rules on scope are being tweaked, a clarification needs to be added about what size of view we are judging, so that we no longer get into arguments about whether really good large photos should or should not be chosen over smaller photos whose thumbnails look better at review size. I'm also a bit surprised by the idea that every church is a valid scope. Most churches don't have Wikipedia articles, but I would agree that's unimportant. My feeling is that any category that makes sense as a category, is distinguishable from others by sight and is in any way interesting is appropriate for VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Err, obviously no: Category:Black and white portrait photographs of standing men at half length, Category:Portrait photographs of women wearing hats, etc. Yann (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The first category isn't interesting and the second one is too broad. I left out "too broad", but that should have been obvious, because there are some parent categories that are way too undifferentiated to work well as scopes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Another Misidentified Promoted Image

File:Passiflora coccinea 001.jpg now renamed to File:Passiflora miniata 001.jpg may be misidentified and not valid in the scope it was voted for. The user who doubts the identification just edited the scope in the VI tag. That is probably not a good idea. Can someone who is more familiar with VIs handle this? --Andreas Stiasny (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Two files closed and removed but not promoted

Here by VICbot, these two files: File:Eurasian Tree Sparrow Head.jpg and File:Epitonium clathrus mediterraneum 01.JPG. Nomination pages: Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Eurasian_Tree_Sparrow_Head.jpg and Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Epitonium_clathrus_mediterraneum_01.JPG. The former image is mine, the latter from User:Llez. User:Archaeodontosaurus User:DeFacto Does this happen often? Other images seem to have been processed properly. Perhaps DeFacto closed the noms too early? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes sometimes there are mistakes, you have to be careful. The images can then be promoted manually. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@GerifalteDelSabana: yes, occasionally VICbot doesn't complete the task. But looking at the sparrow image, I see that the name of the image doesn't match the name of the candidate page, or the references within it. Perhaps the image file was renamed without a corresponding rename of the candidate file and its contents being updated to match the new image name. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I've tagged both images by hand. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
Dear User,
Featured video candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating your videos for the FV tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 20:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Two very similar VIs

Thanks Boothsift for nominating my image for VI here, which converted to this promotion. I'm a little concerned though, as we already had this VI with a broader scope, but on an image of more or less the same view of the same windmill. Do you think the scopes are too similar to coexist? Perhaps Archaeodontosaurus might have an opinion too. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I discover the problem only by this message. Before the vote I asked if there was a VI already promoted and nothing was displayed, as it is the best: I voted. But it's a real problem because one of them is too much, you have to go through: Pending Most valued review candidates. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Can a scope be changed after promotion?

File:Zaadpluizen grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia). (d.j.b.).jpg was promoted under the scope "Typha latifolia seed, fluff". The technical term for fluff seems to be pappus. It would appear that word should be substituted for "fluff" in the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Scope must be linked to a category?

I'll go to renominate Commons:Valued image candidates/Uniongchu.svg but before I need a consensus about the scope, must be linked to a category?, @Yann:  @MB-one:  Ezarateesteban 13:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was established 10 years ago and hasn't been changed since. Per Commons:Valued_image_scope#Links_in_the_scope, links in the scope are encouraged, but certainly not mandatory. Therefore, I don't understand User:Yann's vote. --MB-one (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
My understanding was that a link is needed (to a category, or to a page, etc.). Now if there is a different consensus, fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is, if a category can be linked, it (that is, one and only one category) must be linked, but there are exceptions in which there is no category for a scope but it's still a valuable scope. I think the nominator needs to specifically address this question when it's an issue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
A bit of logic: if the scope does not contain the path to the image that will honestly make the effort to search among millions of images? Yann is right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Limit?

It looks like the question of a daily nomination limit has come up a few times without a clear answer. I have a bunch from a recent event, and decided to just create all the nomination pages at once, but transclude them to the list at a rate of only 3/day. Does that seem sensible? Or should I just transclude them all at once (a total of maybe 10 today)? — Rhododendrites talk |  22:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: A scope should have a Wikidata item (when possible)

Wikidata needs to have one image to an item, which helps populate articles. VIC is well-placed to help make such decisions. It would give our project a little more visibility, as well as crossing over well with other projects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: do you mean a Wikidata item for the scope or just for any linked category? For example, with this VI candidate, with the scope "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front", would you expect a Wikidata item for "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front" or just the category one as for "Land Rover Discovery 4"? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If you looked at the nature of Wikidata you would realise that "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front" is a ridiculous entry, whereas "Land Rover Discovery 4" already exists (See here). This proposal is probably also good guidance in selecting scopes. Martinvl (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Martinvl: I asked Adam Cuerden to clarify what they meant, it may not be a "ridiculous" idea, and supplied that same Wikidata link (correctly formatted as an interwiki link) to the entry for that car to check if that was what they meant. It's probably best to wait to see if they provide further clarification before judging the idea. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Sometimes, the scope is narrower than the category, like here. We should have an entry for this painting in Wikidata. Otherwise, yes an entry for the linked category. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes in {{VIC}} template

Hi everyone,

I am proposing a change in the {{VIC}} template to improve its usage. You can check the proposal in the talk page of the template.

I hope you like the change I propose.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Change applied. I hope the VI reviewers and nominators find it useful. Ivanhercaz (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

How to close a nomination

Some nominations are way overdue to be closed. How does one close a nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ikan Kekek, if you mean to close a nomination giving the result when the notice to close it is shown, you can use the template {{VIC-result}}. It ease the process of close a nomination and give the result (promote or not) in a proper way an image. It is very easy to use:
  • There is two parameters, s and o for support and oppose votes respectively.
  • You have to use it with subst:, so you only have to write {{subst:VIC-result|s=2|o=0}} and it will be transclude in the HTML code that is always used to close the nominations, including your signature.
I hope this is what you were searching for.
Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivanhercaz, but do you know how to close a Valued Image Review? That's really the issue. There's one that hasn't been voted on since April, yet it's never been closed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ikan Kekek the process for closing both types can be found here. The MVR closure process is a little tedious, but the steps are quite straightforward. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty tedious. I appreciate the link! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome Ikan Kekek! I am agree with both, you and DeFacto, the process is a bit tedious. I think we could simplify or make some easier method to close the MVR, but for that would be necessary to think a lot and develop the system to not break everythin.
Checking COM:VICL I have seen that there is an old template, {{Vicl}}, than the one I create, {{VIC-result}}, to close the nomination. Someday I have to think about it too and merge both.
Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to laugh a bit... I already had discovered the existence of both templates and I had the plan to redirect the mine with the another one. Confusions of the life... Ivanhercaz (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, it seems a bit hard to solve Archaeodontosaurus, but with some time I think I might think something. I hope to find a solution and have this Nobel VI! Ivanhercaz (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing and archiving not properly done by the bot

Hi, I discover today that some VIC were not properly closed and archived by the bot. Commons:Valued image candidates/Vincenzo Laviosa - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Google Art Project.jpg was closed on June 23rd, but the file never got the tag, and I never got a message on my talk page. Several images are in the same situation. Any idea why, and how to fix that? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yann! Could you share some other nomination pages of images in this situation? I would like to check if the nomination pages share something in Common that may cause this problem. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: I've just found that File:Old Rectory, St Mary's, Walton 3.jpg wasn't handled properly either. Also on 23rd June. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Changes in {{Vicl}} template

Hi everyone,

I made a change in the {{Vicl}} template that makes possible to use it without the need to specify the signature as third parameter. I made it without asking opinions and presenting it in the sandbox before to publish in the current template because it doesn't break the current behaviour. It is still possible to use the template in the old way.

I encourage you to check the thread in the talk page of the template.

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I forget to announce that you can use this template with the alias {{VIC-result}} too. I created it in 2017 before to know the existence of an older template to close nominations. Now it is a redirection. Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Military ship in different ports or cities

Hi everyone,

I am thinking about the possibility to nominate three photos of the same ship, the Relámpago (P43). In the category there are photographs of the ship in three different ports: one in Arrecife, another in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and one more in Cartagena.

Do you think there would be fine to nominate one photograph of the ship in each city or port? Something like Relámpago (P43) in Arrecife. Another good examples are the Sagres (ship, 1937) and the Volcan de Tindaya (ship, 2003).

What do you think about it?

Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Due the days before answers I would like to mention some users that I always see very active in the managements of VI. @Archaeodontosaurus, Ikan Kekek, DeFacto, and Yann: and anyone interested, could you help me to clarify the question made above?
Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: although I can imagine photographs of some particular ships in various locations being valuable (think grand ocean liners in the waters off the world's greatest cities, for example), I'm not sure that there is a need for a scope for each location that this ship has been photographed in. Is there a notable link between this ship and the various locations it is in in the photos you are thinking of? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no problem in principle; as there will be two pole in the scope it is necessary that one and the other can be well described by the image. No problem for the boat but it will be necessary to pay particular attention to the port which also must be well recognizable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@DeFacto and Archaeodontosaurus: Thanks to both! After thinking a lot about it I think that for the cases in which the scope would be "X ship in Y port" it would be necessary to have a clear image of the port and the ship. I would check photographs of these categories, I mean "ships in". About the notable links in the photos I shared in this thread I think:
  • For the P43 Relampago I think there are photographs for two scopes, one for the ship itself and another one, the RELAMPAGO 3690.JPG, for the scope P43 Relampago (ship, 2012) in the Naval Base of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; this one because it is very clear the naval base with the city in the background.
  • For the Sagres I have thought about it. It is a training ship and probably there are photographs in several ports, but the first I need before to think about possible scopes is to review the files and categorize them according to the port in which the is.
  • Volcan de Tindaya may be interesting too, but at least at the moment I haven't seen photographs for a scope like the ones mentioned. I hope to have the opportunity to take photographs of this ship soon.
Again, thank both for your comments!
Regards, Ivanhercaz (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanhercaz: We really need to go back to the underlying rationale behind Valued Images. VIs are designed to illustrate Wikipedia articles so are you trying to illustrate the port the ship? If it is both, then what is the significance of the ship at that port? In most cases, I do not see any value in having the same ship at three different ports, though there might be a case for an illustration of the ship lying at anchor at a port where it cannot get alongside the quay and another where it is at the quay-side. Finally, there is also a case for the ship being at a port immediately prior to a significant event (for example prior to going into battle).
There is also scope for having a scope for "Cruise line at Venice", but not one for every cruise liner that visits Venice (and of course equivalent scopes for naval vessels). In this case you would be illustrating how cruise liners dominate the Venetian skyline and the emphasis will be on Venice, not the actual cruise liner. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_11&oldid=392441821"