Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 12

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

Global usage

I see there is now a link to global usage built into the nomination. (I don't think this used to be there). Is it still necessary to list all of the places it is used in the nomination itself, or can we just defer to that global usage link? — Rhododendrites talk |  01:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus and Jacek Halicki: What do you think of this? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The global link is enough. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Possibly one could write "Used in X articles in Y different Wikimedia projects - see global list". Martinvl (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of nominations

  • How many photos can I nominate per day or week without being rude? and does it make sense, as I have done now, to nominate two photos of the same scope if I can't decide by myself? --Arne (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether that makes sense and would like to hear others' views on that. I think it's an informal guideline, but in general, it's felt that one shouldn't nominate more than at most, 5 photos a day, but if someone did that every day for a week, I think they'd overwhelm the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that even five is too many, epecially is one is doing justice to the descriptions. Remebr that VIs are not just about the quality of the photograph, but also about the quality of the description. I always try to include both an English language description and a description in the langauge of the country where the photo was taken (using Google Translate) and also to provide wikilinks to Wikipedias in both languages. (See some of my VIs on my home page). Martinvl (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Valued image set nominations

The nomination of valued image sets is currently disabled due to "technical issues". Is there any idea when a nomination will be possible again, or what technical issues are blocking nomitations currently? Maybe we could just reopen it? Thanks for any hints. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Animations in "video" format

I am encouraging all VIC participants to join the discussion at Commons:Valued image candidates/ZenFone 6 Flip Module.webm and put your opinions there. It would be great if we could establish some clear consensus regarding animations (which are allowed here per Commons:Valued image candidates/Pythagoras-2a.gif) in a "video" format (like webm VP8/VP9 and ogv Theora). Thanks, pandakekok9 02:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's ambiguous, the conversation would be better to have here than at a specific case. I don't know why they wouldn't be eligible. The trick would be the scope, I guess. For a species of bird, for example, a scope for "song" seems perfectly appropriate for VIC. But may be not as much for "Statue of Liberty, video"? — Rhododendrites talk |  03:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Closed some MVRs

I hope I did it right. I've gone ahead and closed some because it seems nobody is willing to do so. pandakekok9 13:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

A template to make your MVR closure easier

Introducing: {{VIC MVR-cl-2}}. Currently it has some limitations, like not having arrows and not being able to determine if one is a current VI and will be demoted. And it's only for 2 candidates. This template should be substituted like {{Vicl}}. Feel free to improve it if you want. :) pandakekok9 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

First use of template was here. pandakekok9 03:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to VI scope guidelines

I propose the following changes and additions to the [current VI scope guidelines]

Animals

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: ''[[scientific name]]'' (vernacular name in English if applicable)[, subscope], e.g., Zygaena lonicerae (Narrow-bordered five-spot burnet), pupa. The vernacular name may be omitted if not found. Subscope is omitted for main scope nominations.
  • If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a male sub-scope and a female sub-scope should be proposed for the same species.
  • For some well-known species, sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of lifecycle, i.e. "eggs", "larva", "juvenile"…; appearance, i.e. "morph", "form", "albino"…; or behaviour, i.e. . "fighting", "mating", "hatching", "in flight", "with prey"…; as long are they are relevant for Wikimedia projects. In that case the scope should be appended with a short description of the illustrated aspect. sub-scopes may be combined e.g. "juvenile white morph male in flight"
  • A scope directed to a head and body view of an animal may also be considered distinct from a scope covering the full animal since these show different and significant aspects of the species.
  • If known, the scopes may define the subspecies. This is not essential for the nominate subspecies, except for some well-known species e.g. Mountain gorilla female with baby. Occasionally, there will be known geographical variations that do not have an agreed taxonomy e.g. the Nosy be panther chameleon. Occasionally, an image may depict a variant which has not been scientifically defined. Accepted scientific terminogy should be used. e.g. this picture of a new frog
  • Sub-scopes are necessary for mounted specimens i.e. this moth with no vernacular name
  • If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.

Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

All of this looks OK to me, except I'm not sure about "as long are they are relevant for Wikimedia projects". Commons is not for the sole use of Wikimedia projects. It's a free repository of photos, and my feeling is that a scope which might not be useful for Wikimedia projects but would be useful for someone's blog or article outside of Wikimedia projects could be OK. I do see the language at Commons:Valued images defining VIs as catering solely to Wikimedia projects, though, so I won't insist on opposing this language if everyone else is fine with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Should location be specifically mentioned as not relevant to scopes of living things? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
For some well-known species - don't see why each species could support these, assuming the images are actually in use. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
scope should be at a higher taxonomy level presumably unless there's a different way to identify them such that, say, one takes a picture at a zoo and the zoo has identified an animal to the species level? Is this a practical issue or a verifiability issue? If the latter, it's probably even more of an issue with plants, which can be quite hard to tell apart based just on a picture but for which an id is often readily available if taken at a botanical garden/greenhouse. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The VI rules are imperfect but they are flexible enough to be able to generate discussions often on a case-by-case basis. What is most important is discussion and if possible consensus. Too many rules or too much formalism would make us robots, which is hateful.he majority of Charles' requests are just: the proof is that we are already doing it. For details and complex cases: discussion, always discussion! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)T

People

If I may, I'd like to extend the discussion to people. COM:VIS simply says "A portrait of a notable person" as an example of a suitable scope, without further clarification. Unfortunately, Archaeodontosaurus and I had a strong disagreement on what a suitable scope for a person is, leading to the failure of a clearly deserving candidate at Commons:Valued image candidates/AfekSharon.jpg. He supported the scope "Sharon Afek in 2019" which I considered too narrow, and I supported the scope "Sharon Afek" which he considered too broad. His argument is that as a soldier, Afek may rise in rank in the future and earn more decorations and of course age, so the photo only represents him at one point in time. I am sympathetic to that viewpoint, i.e. I don't necessarily think that one notable person can only have one scope. However: 1) A year is too narrow of a scope. Category:Donald Trump by year has 26 subcategories, each of which could theoretically become a scope if we were to do it by year. In my opinion, no one, however notable they may be, should have as many as 26 scopes. 2) In this specific case, there are only 5 images of him in Category:Sharon Afek, and the nominated one is clearly the best. When there are few images in a category, we should just promote it for the time being under the broadest scope, and if a newer image comes along that potentially challenges the current one, we can replace it in an MVR (if the newer image is similar and simply better) or change the scope of the first image to reflect what it's best at depicting otherwise. Pinging Ikan Kekek who also participated in the discussion.

So my question is: Can we draft a better guideline on appropriate scopes for people? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree on this case - if it's best in the overall scope of pictures of this individual, promote it in that scope. The tricky part is, what should we use for time-limited sub-scopes? Perhaps decades (1990s, 2000s, 2010s, etc., and then what do we do about the ambiguity of "2000s"?)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of fixed time periods of any length because they are entirely arbitrary. For example, Caitlyn Jenner in the 2010s is definitely not an acceptable scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems difficult to change the rules whenever a discussion does not lead to consensus. Especially since our positions are not very far apart. It is caricatural to think that we should label the photos for all the years for the same character. But several images 3 or 4 can be promoted. Setting a date in the scope is a tool, but an end in itself. Conversely, a too narrow scope is always a source of potential conflicts. The MVR solution is the worst because nobody is interested in this path which is too complex. With a little goodwill, we can anticipate conflicts and resolve problems through discussion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, a scope should clearly define what an image is best at depicting. For example, "Donald Trump in 2019" would be a bad scope because such photos are visually indistinguishable from photos taken in December 2018 or January 2020, which would somehow be ineligible for this scope for an arbitrary reason (see Charlesjsharp's note about "higher taxonomy level" above). However, "Donald Trump as president" or "Donald Trump at a campaign rally" would be a suitable scope. I propose: When there are no existing VIs and relatively few images of a particular person on Commons, an image should generally be nominated under the whole scope for the person. When someone wishes to nominate a VIC for a person who already has an existing VI, then it might result in a variety of outcomes: 1) the new photo is clearly better and displaces the old photo for the entire scope; 2) both have a niche that they are best at, so refine the scope of both to be more specific; 3) one of them is best at being an infobox image for the person while the other is best at depicting them in a certain condition, so one of them can remain the VI for the general scope and the other one becomes VI for a more specific scope; 4) reject the new photo as offering no significant value over the old photo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
May I comment on notability. We promote too many borderline notable people, like little-known politicians, sports people and singers. I would prefer that we are stricter, for instance a VI promotion should be for people with a decent-length article on one Wikipedia (not limited to English Wikipedia) with good sources/references. People who pass this threshold should only have one VI, one that depicts them at the time they are most famous. Sharon Afek would have only one VI scope. At the other extreme, the most famous people, like Winston Churchill, could have 10-20 scopes, reflecting the content of their Wikipedia articles and the length of their career. We could call this common sense. In the middle we would have well-known people like John Glenn - perhaps 3 - astronaut portrait, entering space craft, as a Senator. Bob Beamon could have 2. Portrait and winning the long jump - both in 1968. We would not have VIs of them as children or before they were were famous, but we would for Winston Churchill. We don't want strict rules, but guidance (like I have suggested for animals) would surely make it easier for newcomers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Each appointment is a unique case. The rules are already very complex, I suggest: not to change them and to keep as primary reference, what Charles called, common sense. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but different people have different ideas of common sense; my thinking is probably closer to Charles's than yours. To me it is pretty clear that someone like Sharon Afek should have only one VI scope. How about as a general rule: each aspect of a person's life which is independently notable gets a scope. To clarify what I mean: Per WP:GNG (I'm sure a similar policy exists on all Wikipedias), a subject is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So if there are enough sources to write a decent article about Winston Churchill's childhood (regardless of whether a stand-alone article actually exists on any Wikipedia), then his childhood appearance would be acceptable. Note that things like WP:NOTNEWS would apply, so "Donald Trump at Orlando rally on June 18, 2019" would not be an acceptable scope despite the existence of coverage in many reliable sources, since Trump rallies are very routine. (However, "Donald Trump at Tulsa rally on June 20, 2020" would be acceptable, since the coverage of it is beyond routine, so much so that there is an article on it.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
How about adding guidance, not a rule A person is presumed to be notable if the person "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Aspects of a notable person's life which are independently notable may be considered for further scopes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. By the way, I would remove "notable" from "aspects of a notable person's life" - aspects of a person's life might be notable without the person being notable (WP:BIO1E). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Getting into evaluations of subject notability on Commons doesn't seem like a great idea to me. For notability (as in suitability of someone to be the subject a VI), I think it makes sense to just defer to other Wikimedia projects to see what topics images are being used to illustrate. As for whether a subject should have multiple scopes, that seems hard to codify. I'd be inclined to talk more about scopes being based on major aspects of a person (like "as a child", "as senator", "in concert", "giving a speech", "playing football", etc.). The hard thing is where to draw the line about too many, and again I'm not sure how we would codify that. Nomination-level consensus, I guess. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for actual people we can defer to individual Wikipedias, namely whether articles on them exist. But for aspects of people's lives, often Wikipedias choose to not have stand-alone articles on them as an editorial decision, not because they could not theoretically support one. Maybe something like "the existence of sourced prose of at least length X discussing an aspect of the person's life"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone, how about this wording (inspired by enwiki DYK rules):

A person is eligible for a scope if there exists an article about that person containing at least 1,500 characters of sourced prose in at least one Wikipedia. A specific aspect of a person's life is eligible for a scope if there exists 1) an article about that aspect, or 2) a section in the person's article; containing at least 1,500 characters of sourced prose in at least one Wikipedia. The character threshold is meant to be a guideline only, and may vary depending on the situation and especially for languages which are significantly different from English.

Previously I was trying to work off of a sense of a priori notability, but now I realize that basing it strictly off the current state of our Wikipedias may not be such a bad idea after all. If anything it'll encourage content creation by dangling a potential VI in their face, and besides, it's hard to argue that an image is valuable to Wikimedia projects if it isn't actually used in any articles even if those articles could theoretically be created. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said our positions are very close and we are discussing details. For me an image must be "useful and used" and I think that we could include it in our rules. It seems to me illusory to give a number of characters which will be a subject of controversy in itself. Each voter must check if the image is "useful and used" in conscience. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
As I did before, I disagree with any requirement that an image be used in a Wikimedia article, let alone only a Wikipedia article, before it is promoted. The whole point is to establish which picture is best in scope. The fact that another picture was widely used in no way proves it's the best; otherwise, we should use a bot to promote every photo used on Wikipedia to VI and stop working here. It's also unfriendly to users, who face a significant learning curve in the first place in dealing with the syntax of VIC nominations and scopes, to require them to also do a bunch of work on Wikipedia (or, if you all deign to include them, other Wikimedia sites) before nominating a photo. Moreover, no, it's not all that hard to figure out what could be a useful scope. We do it all the time. It's hard at the margins, but that's why we use humans and not bots here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it has to be already used; it merely needs to be possible to use the image to illustrate a biography or part of one, and it needs to be the best on Commons at doing what it does. I would definitely disagree with allowing a person with only stubs on all Wikipedias to get more than one scope. So to simply a bit: 1) To qualify for a single scope, a person needs to have an article or meet the notability guidelines on at least one Wikipedia. 2) For an image nominated under a specific aspect of a person's life, it must be possible to use that image to illustrate a decent-sized portion of their article describing that aspect on at least one Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] In terms of the discussion about scopes for people, I'm guardedly OK with the proposed guidelines, since they're still open to discussion in individual cases, but I would not countenance privileging English Wikipedia over any other Wikipedia in any way. Also, I think that a photo or print or whatever that illustrates a genuine Wikipedia article that is nevertheless at this time a stub is perfectly OK for VI.
My general feeling is that erring on the side of inclusion is better than erring on the side of exclusion, because if you think of VIs by analogy with the old library card catalogues, we don't have nearly as much risk of running out of space that they did, and like those librarians, but even more so, we don't want to include only the most famous people but also the much more obscure but still in some way notable people, and similarly, we want to include all forms of life or as many as possible, not only the best-known or most popular - and thanks to the work of people like Charles, Archaeo and Llez, we are getting closer all the time.
What I think is important is to keep scopes meaningful. So I agree that we don't want scopes of "Trump in 2017", "Trump in 2018", etc. But being overly restrictive such that, for example, all the images of Argentine generals that Ezarate has been nominating might not pass someone's notability test and be refused the VI designation is a danger I would rather not face. (Though they might all be safe because of the length of their articles on Spanish-language Wikipedia; I haven't counted words and would never do so to determine whether an image is a VI.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we need to agree an individual is notable, and their use in an article in any language of Wikipedia that's not credibly nominated for deletion on notability grounds should be considered sufficient proof of that, but I wouldn't support a requirement for them to already have their own Wikipedia article. I also agree that someone with a stub article on Wikipedia would be very unlikely to merit more than 1 scope, though I might consider 2 in special cases (e.g., a portrait of a scientist and a picture showing them at work doing an experiment or looking at something under a microscope, but if they did significant work, they really should have more than a stub). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Short answer: I agree with your two planks on VIs of people, providing that we don't insist they already have a Wikipedia article. There are cases of people who are notable but for whatever reason, no-one has gotten around to starting an article about them. We should allow flexibility for that, because Commons VIs are a research tool for people who might want to write about a subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I've been wavering back and forth between requiring the existence of actual content, or merely the possibility of creating such content, but I agree a bit of inclusivity is not a bad thing so I think an either/or requirement would work. (Of course COM:IAR always applies; we can still reject subjects with articles who are unquestionably non-notable, like if someone creates a self-promo on Cebuano Wikipedia that no one bothers to clean up, but when in doubt we defer to the actual existence of articles on various Wikipedias.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Close Wing Basking of Erionota apex Semper, 1892 – White-tipped Palm-redeye--WLB IMG20190828124839.jpg

There is a problem with this nomination which could be dismissed on a spurious argument. You are invited to give your opinion to avoid injustice. Here --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

United States Army Ballistic Missile Agency Bumper 8 rocket

Help, please! I can't close the nomination for this picture, I guess because I moved the file to one whose name was spelled correctly (see this edit. I thought it wouldn't be a problem because I always leave a redirect. Do I need to revert my edit of the filename (and perhaps the other edits made since? see history), then change the name back after the promotion takes effect? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just drop the appointment in court. The easiest way is to rename the file by changing a single letter. Then we make a new appointment with the new name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. I will try to restore the old name for the time being. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
It didn't help. I really don't understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
There is another possibility is to close it classically; what i did, we'll see what happens --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! Let's see what happens. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem in VI

The BOT has not been running for several days. The promotions are done manually which is long. If anyone knows a programmer to restart the Bot they could contact them. If a few can help close the nominations or make the promotions some help would be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem in VI

Warning; there is a priority problem: find the bot failure and meanwhile close and promote the images. Help is needed. Experienced users must at least close their nominations. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't find the scope ...

The File File:Prinzipalmarkt (Münster).jpg is a Valued Image. Or isn't it? If it is, which scope has it? --XRay talk 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Everything is archived it is written on the page Here --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC).
Thank you! :-) --XRay talk 17:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem in VI : news of the day

Rodhullandemu investigated our BOT problem; it seems that his programmer is no longer with us: we must find a Bot programmer who wants to repair our program. Ask around! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope VICBot's operator is merely taking a break, I know no more than he is not responding to messages on or off-wiki. However, for the time being VICs should be manually promoted, as suggested. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The bot operated has been inactive on Commons for nearly year (and barely active for a few years) as far as I can tell. The bot has had a couple long-term problems that seem like they should be easy to fix: a broken review link (which is included but not made visible) and simply failing to sign. It would be good to have an active contributor take this task over. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Technical#VICbot FYI — Rhododendrites talk |  21:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
How does one manually close a VIC nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notification of author

Several of my images were recently nominated as VIs, of which I was unaware until the VI template was placed on the image. While I'm flattered by the promotions, it would have been nice to be aware of the nominations when they happened. I would suggest that nominations include a courtesy ping for the author or uploader of the image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The BoT does not work we are in survival mode and do everything manually. The watchlist gives you the changes automatically. Between survival and courtesy we favor survival. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If things are so broken without a bot that users cannot be notified when their own image is nominated, then it is time to stop new VI notifications until a working bot is ready. Just as they have the right to be notified if their image is nominated for deletion, users have the right to know if their image is nominated for promotion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This point falls under the denominator you can contact him. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I could try to figure out the VI notification template and send it manually, but unfortunately it's not very human-friendly. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, even when the bot was working users weren't notified if one of their images was promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@Kestreltail: You can ping a user simply by including [[User:Pi.1415926535]] in the edit summary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Users received a message on their talk page, but it did not create a notification like QICbot/FPCbot because the notification configuration did not work properly (I think because it didn't include a signature). It's a long-time issue and another reason why it would be useful to have more people maintaining it. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I successfully sent a VIC notification to myself, the problem is the notification URL went to the first VIC notification that the original bot sent me. Because all of the notification messages have the same title, it doesn't take you straight to the newest one. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Categories or galleries?

It has, ever since I started nominating images for VI, been accepted that we link to the most relevant Commons category. Essential the 'VI competition' is with all the similar images in the category.

However, the guidelines state that this is the hierarchy:

  • Commons gallery;
  • Commons category;
  • Article on the English Wikipedia;
  • Article on another Wikipedia;
  • Don't link

I suggest the following hierarchy:

  • Commons category;
  • Article on the English Wikipedia;
  • Article on another Wikipedia;

I can see no reason why an image should be in a gallery if it is not in the identical category. I cannot see how any image can be considered 'valuable' to Commons if it cannot pass any of the three options. Of course we have to watch out for nominations in newly-created categories that should really link to existing galleries.

Charles (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment I understand your reasoning, but the initial choice was to promote the galleries. I still think that these are particularly useful items for quick selection of images. I propose simplify by:
We must commit ourselves in category management, and for the most enthusiastic in those galleries. And this will have to suffice to define a consensual scope. If we want this project to work, you must simplify the rules.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rules are then easier if they offer more options. --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment VIs exist for the benefit of the user so the term "most relevant" should be looked at from the point of view of the user. If the user knows exactly what (s)he wants, (s)he will go striaght to the category where the image is stored. If they are not too sure, then they will go to a "catch-all" category and see what is there. The purpose of the scope, as I see it, is not to index VIs (that is why we have categories), but to filter out images that are less useable. Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is a comprehensive gallery displaying a representative range within the scope, then that should be linked
  • Otherwise a category specific to the scope should be linked. If there is no appropriate category then the nominator must provide one to make a valid nomination. DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

New discussion

I just unarchived this as it was just relevant to a VIC nomination and I'd like to propose a different hierarchy. I don't consider Wikipedia or other Wikimedia articles relevant to link to VIC scopes, but I do think that when a VIC nominee's scope is fully analogous to a Commons subcategory, it makes no sense to link any Commons category or gallery that covers a larger scope but does not include all photos in scope. Case in point: Scope=Laothoe populi (Poplar hawk-moth) late instar larva; however, only some of the photos in scope (not originally including the nominee) are in the "Caterpillar" subheading on that page, whereas all of them - and therefore, all the photos that anyone judging whether the nominee is best in scope should look at - are at Category:Laothoe populi (caterpillar). I would propose this new guideline: Link your scope to the category that includes all photos in scope. When that is not possible, link to the category whose subcategories contain all photos in scope. I would follow this guideline with explanatory examples. An example of the need for a link to a category whose subcategories contain all the photos in scope is in some portraits of an individuals considered best in scope for all portraits of the individuals in question, but whose likenesses are divided into various Commons subcategories by year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I support linking to the relevant category only. I cannot see the benefit of a hierarchy. I cannot see the benefit of linking to a gallery as not all competing images are there becasue it is voluntary. Galleries have their uses, but there is no process to allow rubbish images to be removed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
For the galleries I am of the same opinion as Charles. You must point to the category that contains the image. We must also fight the bloated categories, bearing in mind that wikidata can only work well if the categories are precise. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, well here's the issue: When your scope is a person's name, but the parent category doesn't contain the images, which are farmed out to "Category:Person's Name in 1982", "Category:Person's Name in 1983", etc. It's easy when your scope is "Name of butterfly (caterpillar)" and there's a "Category:Name of butterfly (caterpillar)" with all the photos of that caterpillar that can be pointed to - that category and not the parent "Name of butterfly" category should be linked to - but how would you make the guidelines on portraits clear when the categories are divided by year? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I just slightly rephrased my proposal, and I would like a response to my points, please, Charlesjsharp and Archaeodontosaurus. I believe this guideline is appropriate and needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The category has only a practical interest; it makes it possible to find the image quickly, it is the precision of the scope that is discriminating for VI. Galleries and categories fill, empty and change, the scope will always remain invariable.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposal sounds sensible. We have had problms where someone was created a subcategory and linked to that to make it look as if it is the only image to choose from. Is there a yes button we could have to ask nomintors that they have checked their nomination meeets these requirements? Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea that might help a bit. Archaeodontosaurus, if a scope no longer points to the right category, ideally, it should be repointed, but at least we should have the scope point to the right category at the time it is nominated, to give it a fighting chance to be there for a while, instead of never there. D'accord? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is effective only for people of great notoriety. The year can be a criterion of choice. It is all a matter of tact and moderation that only good faith and discussions can resolve on an ad hoc basis.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The scope should point to the category that contains the image. It is impossible to compare hundreds of unsorted images. The categories must be more and more refined and contain as few images as possible. It is not desirable to point to a higher category.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It is when the scope is "[Name of Person], portrait]" and the category the photo is in is "[Name of Person], 2017", with a parent category of "[Name of Person]" and subcategories for numerous different years. If not, what would your solution be? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

VICbot

VICbot is down, as per several sections above. Its maintainer has been inactive for a long time. As just the latest instance of bot owners disappearing/bot problems, I've been trying to post various places to see about attracting more people to help out (sadly I do not have the skills). I'm going to go ahead and ping a couple people who replied on Discord here, in a shameless effort to peer pressure them. :) @WikiMacaroons and GeneralNotability: — Rhododendrites talk |  15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

canvassing! It looks like it exists as a toolforge project (and is still actively running, since it's generating the sample image list twice a day), so if we can get a hold of Dschwen and add new maintainers to the project that would be the simplest way forward. I have a dev account so I can join it easily. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I also have a dev account! Huzzah! Is dschwen active on any other wikimedia projects? WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, WikiMacaroons, I did some digging - there is indeed a procedure for taking over a toolforge project if the maintainer is inactive, see wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy. I'm going to post a note on Dschwen's talk page to alert them to this discussion in case they have pings turned off, and if they don't edit for 28 days then we can request to "adopt" the project. In the meantime, we can at least look into why the existing bot isn't working, I believe the bot's code (or some version of it) is publicly available. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: Source code can be found here. Good work finding that Wikitech policy. I'll look through the code for issues. WikiMacaroons (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
All right, I think I've kicked it into some semblance of working (at least in simulation). I did the python2-python3 conversion as I went, so I'm not sure exactly where the issue with the current version is (though I have a couple of guesses). The outstanding question is whether to file for temporary bot approval for my personal bot to get things going, or to wait a month and a half to kick off the adoption process and do it all under VICBot. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Current reworked code is at https://github.com/GeneralNotability/VICBot, there's a long way to go. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Bot request filed at Commons:Bots/Requests/GeneralBotability. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Galleries and other possible changes

GeneralNotability, while working on bringing the bot back, made a good point: now is a good time to talk about whether there are any changes that should be made how how this process is organized. One thing that stands out to me is the gallery system. Looking at the history of the gallery pages, it doesn't look like VICbot has been adding images there for years. As far as I can tell, it's just been dumping things to Commons:Valued image candidates/tag galleries (which is now 662k). Unlike FPC, we don't specify a gallery title in the nomination, so the process of putting them in galleries would be harder.

Looking at the pageviews, people aren't really using these galleries, either (11 pageviews for athletes in the past 30 days). One step to simplify maintenance of the VIC process might be to just get rid of the galleries altogether and put emphasis on categorization (which we already do). What do people think? What about other possible changes? — Rhododendrites talk |  14:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I didn't know Galleries existed, so yeah, I think we can get rid of them. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • One possible future for such galleries is the automatic update thanks to Structured data. Exemple, here is a querry to show you all the files that depicts someone the persons who are quoted as to be athlete in Wikidata, and the files must have a statement VI:
#shows files that depict athletics competitors and with the Valued Image assessment 
#defaultView:ImageGrid
SELECT ?file ?image
WITH
{
  SELECT ?item
  WHERE
  {
    SERVICE <https://query.wikidata.org/sparql>
    {
      ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q11513337 .
    }
  }
} AS %get_items
WHERE
{
  INCLUDE %get_items
  ?file wdt:P180 ?item .
  ?file schema:contentUrl ?url .
  ?file wdt:P6731 wd:Q63348040 .
  BIND(IRI(CONCAT("http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/", wikibase:decodeUri(SUBSTR(STR(?url),53)))) AS ?image)
}

Try it!

  • Of course there is only 3 results because the structured Data is not finished, and if the structured datas for these files is updated, then the querry result will be updated too.

I think the result of such querries can be displayed in galleries pages, and the result automatically updated, exemple ListerBot is already able to update some kind of galleries, e.g. Castillos en la provincia de Palencia, this is not the exactly same thing, but I think this is maybe possible. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked to a competent person, it is in fact not yet possible but it will likely be possible in the future to create such updated results in a gallery. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How does one nominate a set?

I’ve read quite a few of the VI pages, but can‘t find instructions on how to nominate a set. Does one just list all the pictures where the nomination instructions say to add a single filename? Or do the images have to be placed on a gallery page first?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The BOT is sick

Problem of view

Hello everyone, on my monitor, especially the left column is getting wider and wider. To see the right column at all, I have to scroll sideways. Is there somebody who knows this problem or can repair it? Kind regards -- Spurzem (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

When you remove Commons:Valued image candidates/2016-12-15 Karin Wilke (Landtagsprojekt Sachsen) by Sandro Halank–3.jpg, the issue seems to be fixed. I tried to play with some of the formatting of that nomination to determine what the issue might be, but so far I'm not sure (and I have to go now, so just put it the way it was). — Rhododendrites talk |  16:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
One of us is using https: not closed. I closed them and he paid attention to them. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Who can help?

Hallo, I can see the green frame here. You can help to correct it. Kind regards -- Spurzem (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Spurzem: I don't understand. What needs to be fixed there? pandakekok9 Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 03:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Size of field

Out of how many images must a candidate be “the most valued of its kind”? That is, if a picture is the only one we have in a given scope, even if it’s of poor quality and has little illustrative use it would still be “the most valued” in the collection—but common sense would suggest it to be scarcely worthy of distinction. (When I was in middle school I won a city wrestling-championship ribbon, but it was only because there was nobody else in my weight class, so I don’t consider it anything to boast of.) And does it matter who took the other pictures? Presumably it wouldn’t be fair to upload a bunch of poor images just to ‘round out the field’ and make the candidate image look comparatively better.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; so may I take it that since the bar is always higher than ‘better than nothing’, there is no minimum number to be ‘better than’ either?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
You have to experiment, try ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Odysseus1479, you are correct. See Commons:Valued image criteria: "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." We don't require high image quality here, but nominations are sometimes rejected for just being too poor to merit any kind of special recognition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I think a reasonable standard is "QI if the minimum resolution were ~0.5 MP, and minor defects like distortion, chromatic aberration, and overexposure are tolerated as long as they do not compromise the ability for the image to serve as a basic lead image for an encyclopedic article". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick thanks to all who helped me get to 1000 VIs. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Media search filter

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T276257

Hi, just a quick notification, a task in Phabricator have been created about the potential to add an additional filter about Quality/Valued/Featured in Special:MediaSearch which will surely become the default search engine in the long term. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem in VI

To All: the BOT does not validate the images promoted for 2 days. If any of us know the name of the BOT designer can we alert them? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if I'm the bot operator :-D. I thought somebody had rewritten this bot... Let me check. --Dschwen (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@GeneralNotability: — Rhododendrites talk |  02:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Already taken care of, Rodhullandemu informed me on my talk page and I fixed the bug that was preventing promotions. It should have promoted images a couple hours ago. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
that works thanks! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to VI scope guidelines

I again propose the following changes and additions to the [current VI scope guidelines]

Animals

  • General rule guideline is: one scope per species, in the form:For most species with no existing VIs, the first scope would be in the form: ''[[Binomial scientific name]]'' (vernacular name in English if applicable)[, subscope], e.g., Zygaena lonicerae (Narrow-bordered five-spot burnet), pupa. The vernacular name may be omitted if not found. Subscope is omitted for main scope nominations.
  • If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a male sub-scope and a female sub-scope should be proposed for the same species.
  • For some well-known species, sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of lifecycle, i.e. "eggs", "larva", "juvenile"…; appearance, i.e. "morph", "form", "albino"…; or behaviour, i.e. . "fighting", "mating", "hatching", "in flight", "with prey"…. In that case the scope should be appended with a short description of the illustrated aspect. sub-scopes may be combined e.g. "juvenile white morph male in flight"
  • A scope directed to a head and body view of an animal may also be considered distinct from a scope covering the full animal since these show different and significant aspects of the species.
  • If known, the scopes should define the subspecies. This is not mandatory for the nominate subspecies.
  • Location is generally irrelevant for animal scopes. We do not have separate scopes for captive and wild animals. Occasionally, there will be known geographical variations that do not have an agreed taxonomy e.g. the Nosy be panther chameleon. Also, an image may depict a variant which has not been scientifically defined. Accepted scientific terminogy should be used. e.g. this picture of a new frog
  • Sub-scopes are necessary for mounted specimens, e.g. this moth with no vernacular name

Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept this if a consensus develops behind it, but I think some things are worth a discussion: (1) How should we handle instars? (2) Are there circumstances under which a scope for captive fauna is appropriate, such as "[name of dog], leashed" or "[name of eagle], tagged" (though some tagged eagles are wild)? Any other scope you can think of? (3) Are feral animals or birds ever worth differentiating, or possibly not, because they're not visibly different? (4) Also, what about creatures with different kinds of prey as different scopes or [name of bee] on [flower a, flower b, etc.]?
It's fine to keep flexibility and treat this as a loose guideline, but if it becomes a harder guideline, it's worth our considering as many marginal issues as possible now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have changed rule to guideline. (1) Nymphs and therefore nymphs of instars are tricky. OK, I think, if nominators know what they are talking about. An analogy is sex. We do not exclude a butterfly nomination if the sex cannot be easily deternined from the photo, even though it is dimorphic. (2) There could be the odd exceptions, like the kestrel, but very few and not "[name of dog], leashed". (3) Some feral animals look very different, like pigeons, but they are not usually suitable for scopes. (4) Animal + Named Prey can be valuable (female lion attacking wildebeest) (European bee eater with dragonfly) but 10 scopes of the same bee eater with 10 different dragonfly species would be OTT. Even with the new guidelines, there is nothing to stop someone nominating whatever they want. It will just make it easier to assess is it valuable? and justify rejection/approval. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Could some of the examples you gave be added to the guidelines? I think that while allowing some flexibility, the more guidance that could be given to nominators and voters, the better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Most of the proposals seem fair to me, especially as we already do. There is a problem only with specimens that are not yet officially described. We cannot publish images in this case, this is in the wikipedia status. A-grade journals will refuse articles if information has been leaked. We have nothing to gain from this, but the researchers will be penalized. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The way the first part is written seems like it could be clearer. Starting out by saying the general guideline is one scope per species doesn't seem to jibe with exceptions that apply to most, if not all. Which brings me to what I wrote last time:
    For some well-known species - don't see why this wouldn't apply to any species. What is a species that lays an egg where we should not have a VI of that egg? Or a species that flies for which we should not have a VI "in flight"? Assuming the images are actually in use, how well known it is doesn't seem like something we need to concern ourselves with.
    I'm also a little worried about what's not listed here. These rules, for the most part, don't differ from my perception of what already happens. I also wouldn't see it as clearly exclusive of the "at feeder" scope, but that discussion was in part what led to this being reopened. Maybe it would be helpful to see some examples of VIs that would not be promoted if we adopted these? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Please note that being "actually in use" is not a requirement for a nominee, let alone a scope, to be admissible. It was previously proposed that we require nominees to already be used in a Wikipedia article to be considered, and that was voted down. If this project were only about classifying all files already used in Wikipedia articles (and by the way, articles in no other sister site) as ipso facto VIs, we might as well create a bot to do that automatically, disband this project and spend time doing something else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it makes sense to have "in use" be an absolute requirement. If an animal species exists, for example, we could probably have a VI for it even if it's not in use yet. But being in use can help establish the validity of a particular scope/modifier. If the scope is challenged and it's not in use, I think it's harder to make a case to promote. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, Charles, we did actually vote it down, and I would always continue to vehemently oppose VIC becoming purely a vehicle for ratifying preexisting decisions to use a photo in a Wikipedia article, but I can't find the thread. Notability is definitely at times an issue, and if there's an article in any sister site (not just Wikipedia), that is clear evidence of notability, but I think the real question is not whether there's an article on any Wikimedia site that could use a photo but whether it would be reasonable for there to be one. I do agree with Rhododendrites that it's easier to show notability if a sister site uses a photo in an article, but if that's made an absolute requirement, I'm outtahere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I studied the proposed new guidelines for defining a field or category in which an image should be cataloged. Obviously, we will have to adapt to this new method, but it clarifies the procedures. I would be happy to support her with pleasure.--Pierre André (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not an expert on biological taxonomy, but the proposals in general seem to be useful, but I wouldn't want them to be either prescriptive or exclusive. It's always the case, in my experience, that however tightly you seek to frame such structures, eventually some edge/novelty case will arise that confounds the structure. Some flexibility should be retained, IMO. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Side comment, following up on whether we voted down a requirement for there to be a Wikipedia article about a given scope or for a photo to already be used in a Wikipedia article to be eligible for VI consideration: One of the threads I was thinking of was this one, but it would be a lot fairer to say that we didn't come to a consensus behind these proposals, rather than that they were voted down. I'll look at earlier archives to see if I find anything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment And here is the thread in which already being used in an article on a Wikimedia site was indeed voted down as a proposed VIC rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
good detective work! Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course, you can always propose the same change, because votes aren't necessarily permanent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • As written now, I'm fine with these. I still wonder what's implied but not explicit, though, because again I don't see these as necessarily excluding the "at feeder" nomination which in part led to this being revisited. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Although we do not subscribe to the criteria "in use", I believe there to be a strong case for the image to be "usable". To this end, anybody who submits an image that is not already in use as a VI must be able to demonstrate an article where the image could be be used either exists or is sufficiently notable to exist. Martinvl (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Churches

  • I would like to find other ways of defining notability criteria for people and places. Any thoughts on churches, for instance, where we already have the not every church... guideline that is ignored? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's worth discussing, so think of my remarks here as a brainstorm, but some criteria we could consider are: (1) Is there an article about the church on a Wikimedia site? (2) If not, is there one that uses or could reasonably, appropriately and relevantly use a picture of the church? (3) If not, does the church have a striking appearance (exterior or interior, including if it has striking art inside), or is any important event or person associated with it? (4) If not, is it the only or main church in a particular village or neighborhood, or otherwise one that's clearly visible at a distance, and therefore notable for that reason? I think there's some overlap in some of these criteria, but at least it's a first draft. I tend to err in favor of inclusion, but I would agree that a boring church of no other importance probably will never be a useful scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, because that's only the first of at least 4 criteria. If that were required, I'd oppose. Do you see the "if not" structure of points 2-4? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I read it now. Here is a modification of your brainstorm:

Not all churches are worthy of a scope.
Please interpret 'church' to include places of worship for all religions (mosque, temple, tabernacle, shrine, synagogue, pagoda, stupa...)
A church scope, external or internal, should meet one or more of the following criteria:
(1) There an article about the church on a Wikimedia site.
(2) There is an article that uses or could reasonably use a picture of the church.
(3) It is a listed building in a national heritage register.
(4) The church has a striking appearance or design.
(5) An important event or person is associated with it
(6) It holds a particular significance to a village or neighborhood.
(7) It is a visible landmark, clearly visible at a distance.
Some churches will be worthy of more than one scope:
(7) Views from more than one point of view (internal and external)
(8) External features of the church of particular architectural significance e.g. tympanum, spire, dome,statuary, gargoyle...
(8) Internal features of the church which are notable in their own right e.g. art by known craftsmen or with particular religious significance - organ, font, pulpit, stained glass windows, side chapel, altar, screen, statuary, mosaics, altarpiece, memorial, relic... Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I like this. Let's see what other people say. Should we try pinging again? It would be nice to rustle up a majority of VIC regulars somehow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we should include all buildings that are considered an important enough part of a country's cultural heritage to be listed in their national heritage registers such as those of Cadw, Historic Environment Scotland, Historic England and Archaeological Survey of Ireland. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we do this later for all buildings? I think it will be easier to reach consensus on a limited topic like churches. Then we could move on. I have added a criteria (3) as you suggest. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't know where we could find a list of the photographers or nominators with the largest numbers of VI nominations or VIs. Before, I just pinged a bunch of people who've been nominating or voting on stuff lately, but I feel like we don't have enough participants. At Wikivoyage, we have the Travellers' pub and Requests for Comment; the equivalent to the pub here would be the Village pump and I don't know if there's a Requests for comment, but are people likely to see links either place? What pages do most people read? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, there's a table of users in this category that can be sorted by their number of VIs. That might help. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto Thanks for that, just added myself into it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, oh no! You've pushed me down another place! ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks. I think only 5 people can be pinged effectively at a time; do you know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: 10 on Commons. 50 on enwp. 50 is a hard software limit. I think the 10 on Commons is just a per-template-usage limit (so you can {{Ping}} 10 people 5 times, unless I'm mistaken). — Rhododendrites talk |  13:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Be careful not to confuse a remarkable image with a valuable image. Our purpose is to determine the value.
You read correctly in the list of recommendations that if the building is of particular importance for a village or a district it is eligible. All church images are therefore potentially eligible. Then comes the vote and it's up to each of us (who have read the recommendations) to choose with conscience. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I photograph a lot of churches. Most of them, if not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, will qualify for Wikidata which uses an intentionally vague test. So I broadly concur with Charles's suggestions. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  •  Comment I didn't think of this before, but I'd want to edit this: "It is a listed building in a national heritage register." I'd also include state/provincial, county/district and municipal registers of historic buildings, but let's discuss it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good call; I'd also include buildings on the "at risk" register, for two reasons: 1. Although maybe not notable otherwise, they are usually of some architectural merit and 2. Even a derelict building (depending on degree) may be a useful record of it before demolition or refurbishment, for comparative purposes. In Liverpool, we've lost too many good buildings through bombing, neglect, or "accidental" fires. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • If Wikidata is all-inclusive then it is meaningless for VI notability (Ikan Kekek note). You can make 'images with educational purpose freely available to the whole world', but that doesn't mean every image is worth a VI scope. Historic England includes sites etc. that do not have listed status. They encourage people to nominate for listed status. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Back to sub-national lists of historic buildings: The buildings listed by the state of Texas that User:Jim Evans has been nominating should have scopes that remain valid at VIC going forward. I don't know if their being listed offers legal protection or not; I suppose it does, but I don't think that nominators or people voting on the nominations should have to investigate the details of state law to participate in this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment To address Rodhullandemu's point about use in Wikimedia projects as a "red herring": I'd say that's simply the easiest way to establish sufficient notability, but as you see, that's only one criterion we're proposing to use. By no means is there a suggestion of requiring it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well maybe I misread it but that's the impression I got. Certainly there will always be edge cases which will not be covered by specifics, which is why I resist overly prescriptive standards. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry if I've put this in the wrong place but I have never participated in a discussion on Commons before.

I think the criteria (6) It holds a particular significance to a village or neighborhood. is too spongy. Who decides? Neighborhood churches will all say they meet this criteria and/or you can find people who will claim it. The mayor will always attest to its significance to his village -- he doesn't want to lose votes. It seems to me it should be listed as significant by some authority at the state or national level to be accepted. Almost every church in Texas that's 100 years old has a Historical Marker. If you decide to say a church must be 100 years old you should specify the church building, because most 100 year old congregations have recent buildings. -- Jim Evans (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, these are proposed as guidelines, not rules. Does that help? Jim Evans, I think the answer is that we will judge whether a claim that a church is particularly significant for a village or neighborhood is reasonable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been surprised at the type of building Jim Evans has been nominating. Does Texas have a liberal listing regime? Jim, do these listings protect and preserve the building? If not, then the notability may be questionable. This seems to be the place to determine notability. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
No, neither buildings with Texas historical markers nor buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are protected. Buildings on the NRHP can receive federal government matching funds for restoration in which case they get some kind of protection. I've never looked into how well this works. In my opinion Texas is too liberal with granting markers. I've never looked into the criteria they use. -- Jim Evans (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, if I look at New York at the link you gave, only New York City and Oyster Bay landmarks are listed separately. That potentially leaves out a whole bunch of buildings in historical zones in numerous cities around the state, including Buffalo, Rochester, Yonkers, Kingston, Troy, Saratoga and Cohoes (among many, many others). And I guess my position would be that it's really not up to us to decide that a jurisdiction is "too liberal" in listing buildings; the fact that it did so makes the building ipso facto potentially worth an encyclopedia article, and we should err on the side of inclusion, rather than exclusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
If there was to be an article on some of these Texas buildings, it could be speedily deleted as being insufficiently notable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Then an article about heritage buildings in x neighborhood or town. And since some of these buildings (or in the case of churches, the congregations they serve) have interesting histories, they could well pass a Wikipedia notability test even if the building doesn't look special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I should say, I think the scope of acceptable VI categories should be broader than the current scope of Wikipedia/other Wikimedia sites' articles, to facilitate any future desire to expand those scopes or to cover subscopes within existing articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Mmmmm. With this logic, you could nominate any human being because they might become better known and notable and hence worth a Wikipedia scope! Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the analogy would be human beings on someplace's list of distinguished citizens. But I take your point that if there were a million people on such a list in a given city, it would be too broad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Would we like to reopen this discussion? How about stating that a listing on a national list of notable buildings or a selective list by a subnational public or private entity is usually sufficient though not always necessary for VI consideration, but that case-by-case decisions will be made to include buildings not on such lists (perhaps because they're too new) or exclude some non-notable ones on very broad lists? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This discussion comes up from time to time, it is legitimate and very complex. For the moment we have solved the problem with a vote. The vote is simple, it allows a discussion it is transparent. Difficult to do better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Should captions be mandatory for a VI

Apart from a few minor cosmetic alterations, the VI criteria have been unchanged since 2015. In 2019 File Captions were introduced into Commons to provide a link to Structured Data and have been part of the Upload Wizard. I think that it might well be appropriate to require that any new VI submissions must have the "File Caption" field field filled in as well as the description field. As a matter of course, I have been filling this field in on my own uploads for the last year or so and also, whenever I need to visit any old uploads, I also fill in this field.

Is there consensus that on the page Commons:Valued image criteria, an extra item is added to the fourth criteria "Is fully described on the image page"? The suggested text for the new item is "The File Caption field should be filled in". Martinvl (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I do not accept the "more work" argument - the extra work is minimal, especially since there is a limit of 255 characters and wikilinking is not permitted. I make a point in entering the caption field in English and if the image was taken in a country where another language is used, then including the caption in that language as well (I use Google Translate). For the record, I too am past retirement age. Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Dunno, should this be mandatory? In some cases, that would mean adding it to someone else's old photo. A good idea, but maybe we can highly recommend it, instead? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if this discussion is for a closed group or open, anyway I think it should be mandatory. This field can be searched outside of wikimedia and to me it is natural that a VI can be spread to a wider audience to increase it's usage. VI are just that, valued, so they should meet high demands like captions. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussions are never for a closed group, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_12&oldid=590129034"