Open main menu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents

Scope format for works of artEdit

Two very similar VIsEdit

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?Edit

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?Edit

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-oneEzarateesteban 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?Edit

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)

  • The number of three has long appeared to me as ideal. We do not get tired, and it's a way to maintain a constant flow. But we must also take into account the possibilities and circumstances ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok. Though I may have done myself a disservice by creating them all at once, since the time limit would likely be from the date of creation not date of transclusion. Oh well, we'll see if it's a problem. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  12:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes it is a problem, I advise to place the serie already ready because the timer is already running ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

How to close a nominationEdit

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)
  • If you can solve this insoluble problem you will have the Nobel VI!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 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)

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

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}} templateEdit

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)

Closing and archiving not properly done by the botEdit

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}} templateEdit

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 citiesEdit

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