Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list< Commons talk:Valued image candidates
|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|
MVR closure malfunctionEdit
(Cross-posted to Commons talk:Valued images#MVR closure malfunction)
On 5 November I closed 3 'Most Valued Reviews' ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade", "Gierymskich 8, Kłodzko" and "Lupinus pilosus (habitus)"), by following the steps detailed in Commons:Valued image closure#Closing most valued reviews. VICbot ran on 6 November and successfully extracted the processed candidates of the last 2 of my 3 closure attempts, but for the first ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade"), only 1 of the 5 processed nominations was extracted.
This was my first attempt at closing an MVR, and I suspect I may have messed it up somehow. VICbot has run again several times since then, but the remaining Inveraray 4 still have not been extracted. I did put a message on Dschwen's talkpage (redirected from VICbot's talkpage) asking for help, but have had no response there.
- I've just come across another set of rules for closing MVRs at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules#Most Valued Reviews, and reading through both sets, I see that I should have closed all candidates as "undecided", even those that were opposed, because there was no overall winner. I'll try that and wait for VICbot to run again. DeFacto (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know the correct procedure to be followed to have third party review if one editor opposes nominations by another, then refuses to revert the oppose when the reason for the oppose has been explained as an error. Medium69 has also made a threat on my Commons talk page which I believe to be inappropriate. Charles (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Charlesjsharp: Hi, If the issue continues, you can bring it to COM:AN/U. On the substantive issue, I am a complete newbie regarding insects, so I will wait for other opinions. @Medium69: I don't think your warning is appropriate here. Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- As a complete newbie regarding insects, it would therefore be correct for you to reverse your oppose of my insect nomination and bird nomination. Charles (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- To both: I suggest that you avoid voting or commenting on each other nominations for a while. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Closing a nominationEdit
I don't think it can be right for an editor (Medium69) who has opposed a nomination (mine for the Scarlet ibis) to be able to then go an close it. Can another editor intervene please. Charles (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: @Archaeodontosaurus:I think we should have a standardized form of scope for cars. I've just had to oppose an image of an Ultima GTR as there are lots of other nice images in the category gallery, probably with different engines etc. I'm no authority, but should we have Manufacturer, Model (engine cc, year, anything else) so my old mini could have been Austin mini (998cc, 1966) or Austin mini (998cc, 1966, with wheel spats). There's also the decision on what to do about pictures showing front/back/sides and if we're not careful, we could have many scopes for each vehicle. Over to the specialists... Charles (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's a good idea. I support this proposal: Manufacturer, Model, and showing pictures: (front / back / sides). If we agree on at least three, I favor to put in the recommendations. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I don't claim to be a specialist, but I have owned three Volkswagen Golfs - a MkI, a Mk II and a Mk IV. All my cars were 5-door, but there are also 3-door variants and coupes. I am broadly in favour of regarding the Golf Mk I, Mk II and Mk IV as separate models (they all look different - if I remember correctly, the Mk I was 800 kg and the Mk iV was 1100 kg) but I tend to think that the three door and five door variants should be treated as a single model with preference being given to the 5-door for the second VI if the first VI is a 3-door model. A coupe could be regarded as a separate model in its own right as it looks different. I do not think that engine size should have any bearing unless the cars look different. Also left-hand and right-hand variants should be treated as the same model. In addition, cars that are sold under different names to different markets, but which are otherwise the same (eg the Vauxhall Astra and Opel Kadett) should again be treated as a single model with the scope naming both cars - for example "Vauxhall Astra/Opel Kadett front view". Martinvl (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Good ideas. I think that Vauxhall Astra and Opel Kadett front view might have to be separate scopes, because they look different (badges, grills etc), and the engine/trim option scopes could be limited to rear views i.e. where you can see a difference in the picture. Body styles definitely different scopes for me: coupe/estate, but not sure about 3 door/5 door. I think I agree on LHD/RHD. Charles (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I too support discussing the standardisation of car scopes. I'm no expert in car photo categorisation either, although I do have a casual interest in car history and engineering. I am in general agreement with most of the ideas above to help ensure that we try to avoid having multiple scopes which would contain visually identical vehicles. I think we need to primarily group on Marque (not necessarily the same as "Manufacturer"), Model (including generation or mark number) and Body Variant - and then (but only if they yield visual differences) on Model-Year, Engine Capacity and Trim Level and exceptionally any other visual differentiator. On top of those, we need to probably allow for view angles (front, rear, top, side and three-quarter front and rear (as said above, some views of different marques or models may be identical so we probably need to cover commonise them somehow). DeFacto (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Marque is much better than manufacturer. The test, as we're talking photos, is does it look different, so trim might be more relevant for an interior scope. Also, as with insects, two views give 90%+ of the relevant information and a scope image i.e. a good shot of a car for identification purposes, would normally be three-quarter front and three-quarter rear - that includes side, front and back and who cares about top unless it's a coupe - in which case the three-quarter views should ideally be from a slightly higher elevation than usual to show the interior. Charles (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the threshold should be tell-tale visual differences and that front three-quarter and rear three-quarter should be the standard views. Don't forget trim level may change external appearance significantly too - think of the models where higher trim levels bring body kits, different wheels, more lights, spoilers, etc. DeFacto (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- What is it's scope? View=front three-quarter, Marque="Ultima", Model="GTR". Its year of manufacture is 2005 and its engine is 6200cc, but not being a connoisseur of Ultima vehicles, I don't know whether either of those last two details make it visually unique in any way, or what else is required for this picture! So the best I can offer for scope is: Ultima GTR - front three-quarter view, what else does it need - if anything? Please advise. :) DeFacto (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I changed the scope at Commons:Valued image candidates/Ultima GTR 2005.jpg. Feel free to vote again! DeFacto (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: @Charlesjsharp: @Martinvl: Okay, I have a draft of a car scope section ready below for critique. I followed the examples in Commons:Valued image scope#Domain-specific scope guidelines. Please feel free to criticise and amend.
- The general rule is that there will be two scopes per car model - one each for a front three-quarter view and a rear tree-quarter view, in the form:
- For car models that have been used for more than one generation of car, generation scopes may be proposed to encompass those. In this case, the main scope should be extended with the common nomenclature for the generation, e.g. "Land Rover Discovery 3 - front three-quarter view", "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front three-quarter view".
- For visual changes that are introduced during the lifetime of a generation of a car model, model-year scopes may be proposed. The common nomenclature for these should be added to the main scope, e.g. "Peugeot RCZ - front three-quarter view", "Peugeot RCZ facelift - front three-quarter view".
- For car models that are available in more than one wheelbase and/or body-variant, wheelbase and/or body-variant scopes may be proposed to accommodate them. In this case the main scope should be qualified with the common nomenclature for the wheelbase or variant, e.g. "Land Rover Range Rover 4th generation - long wheelbase - front three-quarter view", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV estate - front three-quarter view", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV hatchback - front three-quarter view". Common body-variant qualifiers are "sedan", "saloon", "estate", "coupe", "hatchback" and "convertible".
- If marque/model/generation/body-variants are impossible to distinguish visually, then a scope should be generic enough to cover them all, e.g. "Vauxhall Zafira A/Opel Zafira A - rear three-quarter view".
- If engine differences and/or trim-level differences of the same car model can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then scopes with the engine-cc and/or trim-level appended can be proposed for the same marque/model/body-variant, e.g. "Jaguar F-Type 5.0-litre V8 - rear three-quarter view" (for which this image might be a candidate) and "Jaguar F-Type 3.0-litre V6 - rear three-quarter view" (for which this image might be a candidate).