Open main menu
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Once again: scopeEdit

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 Yes, the written "rules" have not kept pace with the improved practices, and so are currently out-of-date.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)
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)
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)

Scope format for works of artEdit

Another Misidentified Promoted ImageEdit

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 promotedEdit

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)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".