Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

< Commons talk:Valued image candidates(Redirected from Commons talk:Valued image candidates)
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Contents

VICbot problemEdit

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.JPGEdit

@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 ImageEdit

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)
  •   Done Ok that is done, I changed the scope to Deck of the Daniel Carter Beard Bridge, and I removed the new nomination from the VI candidates pages. Nothing more has to be done unless someone disagree. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently added image is not displayedEdit

…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)

  • It is possible that the sign = in the title is at the origin of this problem --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That doesn't suit me at all 'cause the car carries the '=' in its designation. Is there a workaround for this? --Jacek79✇✇ 20:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".