Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

< 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.


How narrow a scope?Edit

Will users please visit this MVR and look at the section "Beaune Hospice Courtyard (Western side)". What is the most appropriate scope for the images? My own view is that "Beaune Hospice Courtyard" is appropriate, but I a dispute has broken out with one editor opposing the VI nomination unless teh scope is narrowed down to "Beaune Hospice Courtyard (west and north sides)" and another opposing the narrowing down of scope. What do other editors think? Martinvl (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I also think that your scope is fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the courtyard has four sides, each with their own unique and notable features. Three of the nominated photos show the same corner and the same two adjacent sides (west and north), the other photo shows another corner and one other side (west and south). In my opinion, as there are four sides and four corners, the least number of scopes we need to cover this courtyard is two - of diagonally opposite corners, but four would be acceptable too, one of each corner (or one of each side). Why should we not allow full VI coverage of this unique and beautiful building? DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@DeFacto:: Please read Commons:Valued image scope#How to choose your scope. In that section you will see "Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page ...". Next, please read Commons:Valued image scope#Buildings. In that section you will see "When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes ... Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).". If we look at Category:Exterior of the Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune we see that there are two sub-categories, one for the courtyard and one for the facade. This tells me that there should only be one VI for the courtyard, not one for each side. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: I think you are reading of the hints and tips page too narrowly. There is nothing to stop us creating a more useful scope, even if it is one which does not have an exact category - per the rest of the clause you half quoted: "... If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope." The building in question surrounds a courtyard and has several interesting and unique aspects, each worthy of its own scope. Which is why I favour doing it full justice with as many scopes as necessary to fully cover it, rather than artificially and unreasonably trying to limit the number of scopes we allow for no reason other than an unduly narrow interpretation of those hints and tips. DeFacto (talk). 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Considering that we only have 20,000 VIs out of 30 million files, I would say we should be a bit less restrictive or rigid in regard to scope when we can, within reason of course. lNeverCry 21:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that we are forgetting that the purpose of VIs is to help users find appropriate images within those 20 million images of differing qualities, not to reward good quality images (that is what the QI system is about). Here is a practical example - the writer of this blog was looking for an appropriate royalty-free image for posting. Wikimedia Commons is an appropriate source. By going into Category:SI units and pressing the "good pictures" icon she got 10 images that could well be appropriate - all were of good quality. She did not have to sift through tens of categories looking as hundreds of indifferent images. She chose one of those ten - job done! We must be careful when trying to increase the number of VIs that we do not overload certain searches with too many similar VIs. That is why I am looking for good images taken by other photographers that are worthy of being a VI and that are in areas that are devoid of VIs. (See here). Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we have to be selective and not overload categories. But there are some categories with 50 or more QIs where 4 or 5 VIs might be better for selection by users than just 1 VI. As you say, though, the standards still have to be much higher than simple QI. I just don't want selection to be so strict that a deserving image is declined. I don't see this as a pressing issue though; VI is run very well from my experience. But I've only done a mere 37 successful VI nominations so far...   lNeverCry 23:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen this discussion. My feeling is that any useful scope should be eligible for a VI. So, for example, if there's a clear difference in appearance between an infant and juvenile of a particular species, that's a reason to have two scopes (or sub-scopes, if you like). I don't think good photos should automatically be judged as useful VIs, either; that isn't or shouldn't be the point, and people shouldn't nominate photos here simply because they're good photos. Instead, distinguishable sub-scopes should be treated as scopes precisely because they can be useful to illustrate an article. Let's keep in mind that many articles have more than one photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

VI rulesEdit

@Frank Schulenburg: @Olivier LPB: @Ikan Kekek: @Archaeodontosaurus: @MartyRus: @Smihael: @Scotch Mist: @Palauenc05: @Berthold Werner: @Moheen Reeyad: @Jacek Halicki: @Famberhorst: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Lucasbosch: @Llez: @Masum-al-hasan: @Jebulon: @Moroder: @DeFacto: @Alvesgaspar: @Bgag: @Halavar: @JLPC:

Can I suggest that we alter the rules to say that for an image to be VI it should be used on a Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikispecies etc. article? I have pinged everyone on the VI candidate page today and all those with 200+ VIs listed on the VI summary page. We could also insist that if a gallery page exists (as well as the category page) then the image must be added to edit. That would help those searching as the gallery page comes up in a search in preference to the category page. Apologies to anyone missed off. Charles (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support I agree with Charles's proposals. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I often first wait until a picture is VI before adding it to a page, especially if there is already a picture of the object. Second part of Charles proposal is ok for me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you should be happy to substitute an image. If it is reverted (it has happened to me) then the image is may be not such a good candidate for VI. Charles (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The idea is good. This seems to me a good criterion to justify the value of an image.--Pierre André (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't understand your second point about a gallery page and "added to edit". Please explain. I'm fine with the first rule, simply because it brings clarity to the situation, and [Edit:If this policy is adopted,] I would phrase the rule as "In order to become a Valued Image, a file must be used on at least one article on a Wikimedia site other than Commons, with user and talk pages not counting as articles". I would not support any restriction on files being nominated before they've been linked in articles, in case there's any thought about that, only on their actually being approved before that takes place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is an example: I nominated a sunbird in the Category:Cinnyris venustus and it was promoted. But I do a much better job when I add the image to the gallery page Cinnyris. If it was a more common species I would add to the page Cinnyris venustus, but this page does not exist. Charles (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment In princpal, a good idea. However we should be cautious about the submitter adding an image to an article just to meet this requirement - see for example this update. I suggest that there should be a qualifier that if the image was added to the associated article in the two weeks preceding the VI nomination, then the value of the addition should be taken into account. Adding an image to an article where there is no relevant image is always welcome, replacing a poor image with a better image is also always welcome but in other circumstances, adding an image to an article should be carefully examined to see whether it has enhanced that article or whether it is just adding clutter. Martinvl (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, there is an opportunity for this sort of action, but the community should be able to keep an eye on this. If I have a number of VI candidates for a particular species, I tidy up and enhance the Wikipedia article with a didactic gallery. The same process could apply to flora, buildings, cities, motor cars etc. Then we really do create valuable content and justify our images being VI. Charles (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see cases were an image could very well be described as valuable but there just is no suitable article for it or it doesn't fit well into an article or other place because it is a collage, so image format, dimensions or because it is too broad in scope. I have three VI candidates of such collages where I have this situation. I tried to use the images but I didn't want to place them just because. I feel like VI in principle should be about the images themselves and not how and if the are used. – Lucas T 17:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: The current guidelines say Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects so I don't understand this argument. Charles (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: 1. It says potential. Potential is when something could be used in the future, even if it is not in use currently. So its harsh to preemptively deny a VI without clearly arguing it doesn't even have any potential to be used. 2. In my view value should be taken more universal than encyclopedic value for the wiki projects, I see that this definition is harder to evaluate though. – Lucas T 17:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I respect your view, but I think VI should just be encyclopedic value for the wiki projects and that must surely encompass almost everything. But why not give us some examples of your images to discuss? Charles (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is not a surprise if I 100% agree: all my nominations are used in articles, in {creator} templates etc... This is my own challenge, and of course Charles's rationales are good for me. It could be a good reason to justify eliminations of images with poor value. --Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I am not suggesting retrospective action! Charles (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, if usage becomes a criterion, we surely need to include that the image needs to have been in use for a minimum length of time (2 weeks, or whatever), to allow other editors a reasonable amount of time to disagree with the image placement and revert it. Or are we to accept that an image can be uploaded, immediately pushed into an article and nominated - before other editors have noticed or had a chance to challenge the usage? DeFacto (talk). 17:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point for images that replace existing ones. I do this a lot... Charles (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The German Wikipedia is a good place to do this - almost all additions (at any rate by non-accreditied editors) are vetted before they are accepted. However adding an image to an obscure article in a little-used Wikipedia is not much of a test. Martinvl (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Proposal -> vote is not a good process. Proposal -> discuss -> adjust -> (and maybe vote if there is not clear consensus) would be much better. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Now, that this has become a vote, I strongly oppose the proposal. As the initiator of this project back in 2008 one of the strong objectives for this projects was to motivate media contributors to bring diversity into the project without too many barriers. No tough requirements regarding your equipment, if you managed to contribute something new of value and illustrate it well at the rather moderate required review size you had a VI. And no requirement that an article is written about it. The guideline says Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. The word potential is very important and it is there for a reason. It is there to make sure the barrier for contributing new subjects is as low as possible. It is therefore very imporant that there are no requirements for image use in an existing article. There are media contributors, who are not good wikimedia article writers. Do not impose barrier for them in this way! I am one of those, but still I can add value by uploading images of new subjects on Commons, which are of potential use in existing or future Wikimedia projects. There are media contributors, who are illeterate, but good media contributors. For instance, I once uploaded an image of an sign written in Guadalopean French Croele, which is a VI and it is also of use in articles today. But I should certainly not start writing an article about something I did no know anything about, such because i bothered to take a photo of it, upload it and nominate it as VI. If I were to write something even though I am blank on the subject, it would be most natural to do it in my native language Danish on the small Danish wikipedia, but dialect is of marginal interest for Danish Wikipedia users, and it would feel silly to wirte an article of very little use such to fullfill a silly requirement such as this. I would not feel comfortable writing anything in English about it as I do not feel I master written English well enough - on top of not knowing anything about the topic.
Also, if I look at FPC on the English Wikipedia, where it is a requirement that candidates are used in articles, I have seen too many examples over the years, where creators blindly have added their image to some article without any editorial jugdement leading to either image clutter in an article or a more suitable image being used to illustrate something being replaced by a worse alternative. As a creator you are often pre-biased to think your photo is better than it actually is.
It is better the opposite around. Once an image is VI within a ceratin scope and this has been evaluated by an unbiased editor, there is good justification to replace an existing image in a existing articles representing the same scope with the VI.
And Lucasbosch: The scope of Commons is wider than just encyclopedical it is for educational media.
If this proposed rule comes into effect, I can promise you that you will not be bothered by my occasional participation in this project anymore as I do not intend to force my images into articles just to be able to nominate. And I do not intend to write stub article about topics I have no knowledge of, just because i happened to take a photo of it, upload it and nominate it for VI because it was new scope, or an better illustration of a scope than existing images. If a nomination fails it should be removed again from the articles then? It would be very, very silly. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot see that anyone else has called for a vote. Charles (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose, for the reasons explained above by Slaunger. Although I've not contributed to this forum for some time (which is no longer the friendly place it used to be), the subject is important enough to justify interrupting my long sleep. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support If a VIC is potentially useful, it should be used at least on Wikidata, if not in another Wikimedia project. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yann I agree this is relevant after promotion, but it should not be the burden of the nominator. I have never edited on Wikidata, and it appears rather technical and something you would have to invest quite some time in understanding in order not to screw up. I respect those users who do know how to do that. Let users do what they are best at. If users are good at uploading media of new scopes, and getting a VI is an encouragement, do not impose extra barriers, it will discourage newcomers. It is fine and to be encouraged that experienced users do more than the minimum requirements. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Slaunger It is certainly not more difficult to add an image in Wikidata than to article in Wikipedia, and with some new infoboxes, it is the way to do it. It is also not more difficult than to create a VI nomination. So this argument does not hold. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yann 1. Your argument does not support why to do this prior to promotion. What if the VIC is declined? 2. Whereas it is easy to add an image to an existing wikidata item (I do not know if this is the correct term), it is something else if there is no such item, and you need to create it first. It may not be very difficult to do if you know the policies and guidelines for it, but it is an additional barrier. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I again agree with Slaunger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Slaunger's argument is the strongest, in my opinion. And I don't like this talk about requiring people to add images to articles 2 weeks before nomination. As for galleries, I didn't even know there was a gallery of the type of birds Charles mentions until he gave it as an example in this thread. I think many people who might have valuable photos to nominate may not know about galleries, and I also think that requiring people to do all the work themselves is rather non-Wiki. I spend a lot of time on Wikivoyage, and we do not delete Outline-level articles just because a user hasn't put in templated listings. Instead, we collaborate to try to produce a good article. Collaboration is called for in VIC, too, and making people jump through all these hoops is in my opinion too high a learning curve and likely to discourage many new contributors from nominating worthy pictures. I also think that the point should be to judge whether a photo is best in a logical scope, even if no article has yet been written in that scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Slaunger --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slauger. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slauger --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slauger, that rule is sensible for featured pictures but not for valued --Miha (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per Slaunger. Hohum (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


  Comment Thank you to everyone for contributing. I think it's clear there is no desire of the community to change the current guidlines. Those who supported my suggestion can always withhold a promotion vote as now, but should not, I think, vote against a homeless VIC. Charles (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I am not going to oppose here, cause I like to do that and all of my nominations are used in at least one wiki protect before their nominations. Alongside Slaunger's opinion is rationale. Regards. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A helpful tool - Wiki Shoot Me!Edit

This is not about gun violence!  Over at Commons talk:Photo challenge there has been some discussion of making photo challenges focused on emphasizing new content. Somewhat overlapping the objectives of the VI project. I noticed Alexmar983 and Jarekt mentioning the Wiki Shoot Me! tool. A tool I had not heard of before. Maybe some of you know it?

I have tried it and it is a very handy and fast geolocation map-based tool for finding out locations where we have photos from Commons (blue dots), locations where wikidata items are registered with (green dots) and without (red dots) photos. I tried to use it for the area that I lived in and found several geolocated wikidata items for which there were no photos on Commons quite nearby my current location. Quite common places such as public schools, the local library, etc. Places which are pretty non-notable from a photographic point of view, yet worthwhile to take a photo of and upload, and perhaps nominate as VI.

Anyway, based on this positive experience I thought it would be worthwhile to mention the existance of the tool here, as it might be useful for others as well, as a source of inspiration of where to take pictures nearby that could be useful. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we can also add WNP that is not complete but uses also local templates. Some of them should be removed too, so at least we clean around.
The "problem" with WSM is that there are red dots with image on commons, red dots without image on commons but 1) coordinates can be wrong (so you can have an image far away from the red dot it is linked to) 2) the image with coordinates can be not totally ok (e.g. a particular instead of the whole picture, an old picture etc...) 3) there is an image without coordinates already, it is just not on wikidata yet and you can't display. sometimes there are also copyright issue in certain countries, but let's assume people know them.
The main reason why I did not draft an image tool page here yet is because of this lack of precision. it depends also a lot on the areas. In countries like Italy because of a strong effort is quite good, in the USA is terrible. It is generally improving, and I am contacting local communities one by one. I started with svwikipedia, as I told to Marti at WMF I will contact slovenian wikipedia. I have contacts for Switzerland and for the Czech Republic. And so on. So I never wrote a clear description here because I wanted to make more tests but I can tell you: people are learning faster and faster and that's a very good sign. Also new users like it.
If you want to use WSM efficiently, in theory the first thing to do before looking for an image should be to update the false flags, that is P18 that can already be filled with an existing image. This can be done in the most rapid way with WSM or wdfist. Using the local wikipedia, WDFIST can suggests images used on local article even if such images have no coordinates and are not displayed on Wikishootme.
These tools are not difficult, but it is wise to provide a detailed explanation and find some users that can answer to all the basic questions. In my experience those who want to learn it, learn it fast. If you need it I can write something. I just translate the stuff I say in Italian in user talks.
In any case, if you assume that a red dot is something that is statistically rarer, a good picture is always welcome even if a duplicate exists. 90-95% of the time such duplicate is probably old and taken by a "simple" user with a "simple" camera. So there are good chance that a good picture taken on a red dot is going to be useful even if it is a duplicate.
I hope I said everything relevant in the shortest way.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

VI going from bad to worseEdit

Hi, TL;DR: The VI project is going from bad to worse.

We have had meaningless scope for sometime, the last example is Venice-Simplon Orient Express in Poland, Mieroszów (railway line 291), car number: 4095, series: 4091-4110, built: 1927, seats: 38, constructor: BRC/GB, station dispatcher. :((

Now we also have near useless images being supported, when they are several better images for the same scope. See Commons:Valued image candidates/Gateway-of-India.jpg. Almost all other images in the category are better than this one. How long will this continue? Yann (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yann. In many cases it is a matter of users making judgements while failing to RTFM. In this case the manual can be found at Commons:Valued images and its subsidiary pages. The main page is available in many different languages. Martinvl (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I never proposed an image here because I never understood the "limit" of this selection even reading the manual two times. I mean both on the relevance side and on the quality side, I was left with some doubt. Thank God I did not irritate anyone. Maybe a simple "to do" list to check could help?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and I think novice participants should be helped and encouraged and not ridiculed or treated harshly. Why not simply explain to the generous uploader of the valuable image of the railway carriage how their attempt to get the photo recognised as a VI could be improved, rather than complaining here? DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi DeFacto,
I have had discussion with the author of this photo, who has no idea about what is a quality picture, and yet continues to argue that his picture is good. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We have problems with understanding the scope concept, but we have always had it. We must help the new ones is obvious. VI is the most interesting and most useful of the competitions but also the most difficult. The fact that we often talk is a sign of good health. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, the real problem with VI scopes is that the description is poor. My understanding is that a VI is the best single image that can be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article or potential Wikipedia article (maybe one VI per 20k bytes in an image?). Therefore the scope should tie in with the Wikipedia "notability" rules (which vary slightly from language to language). Martinvl (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Martinvl: The scope of Commons is wider than the wikipedias. It is for educational content in a broader context; thus the notability criteria from Wikipedia cannot be used directly. There are other wikimedia projects, which use other kinds of media, like wikivoyage, and the scope of Commons extends also to external uses not directly related to existing wikimedia projects. Say, if there was a Wikitrains project, you might be interested in every possible model of a tran, or a wagon, although the example with car number 4095 just goes beyond anything in narrowness I can image to be relevant. We have had discussion about how narrow taxons for living species could be relevant, and we have ended up with agreeing that the distinctions stops when the scopes are not visually distinct. Because when scopes becomes so narrow that they are not visually distinct there is no point in dividng further for illustrative purposes. I think this principle can be used more broadly as a guide to how narrow a scope can be where it is relevant. Like a VI notability crierion. For instance I guess car number 4096 is not visually distinct from car number 4097, and in that case the scope is just too narrow. But if car number 4096 is the only one to have a visually distinct feature - like a special painting, it may be relevant to have that as a scope.
Some common sense has to be applied though besides scopes being visually distinct. No two carrots look the same, they are visually distinct, yet it is obviously not relevant to have a scope for each carrot in the world? Also, there can be two subspecies of an animal, which are not visually distinct, but based on the location in the geolocation, it can be stated that it is one and not the other sub-species. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Slaunger, With your carrot example, you say yourself why visually distinct is not a valid criteria to decide which scopes are acceptable, and which are not. I could find a thousand similar examples. I agree that Commons' notability criteria are much broader than Wikipedia's, but you didn't provide an objective way to determine what is acceptable, and what is not. IMO this is essential to make VI a sound project. We had the simple criteria that a distinct category is needed, but we now don't use it. In the previous discussion, I argue for a distinct Wikidata item, and this is still IMO the best way to have an objective criteria. We could find solution to the issue of creating the Wikidata item. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Yann, there is more to it than visually distinct. Maybe it would be more correct to at least limit scopes by saying that they shall be visually distinct? The hard thing is that sometimes we require more than that to avoid the carrot problem. You suggest it should be a specific category. It is not such a bad idea, although I do not recall it has ever been in the guidelines or the de facto scope standard. For instance I looked at one of my first VIs promoted back in 2008 with the scope "Black ice growler", but there is no such category. It is categorized in Black ice and Icebergs in the Atlantic Ocean. Do I think the scope is OK: Yes. But there is no category for this probably because it is the only photo of a black ice growler and sometimes it seems a little artifical to make sub-category to contain just one photo. The simplicity principle of our categorization guidelines tells us not to "not to combine too many different criteria" (which is vague though). And generally it is frowned upon if you make categories with just one image. So I also think a one VI per category is sometimes a too coarse distinction, especially when you are in a subject area in which there are only a few photos, and thus you have very thinly populated categories. I am also concerned that if we impose such a criterion, users will just start creating extremely specific categories just to be complaint to the "scope=category" rule. And isn't the same thing an issue with wikidata items? That if it becomes a requirement that it is scope=wikidata item, people will just start creating overly narrow wikidata items just to be VI compliant? (In addition to imposing another barrier for users not familiar with Wikidata, although you mention this could be solved). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Once cannot create a Wikidata item unless it has at least one object that passes the notability test to which it can point. If we were to accept the Wikidata route as a means of identifying relevant VI scopes, non-notable Wikidata items would soon get deleted. Martinvl (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That's my point: I have never seen a Wikidata item deleted for lack of notability. Slaunger's argument above is exactly what I want to show: if the category is irrelevant, the scope is probably too narrow. But I cannot imagine a valid scope which could not have a corresponding Wikidata item. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI in three year I saw only one wikidata item deleted (but not merged): a writer who published only one book with a minor publisher. Wikidata is very big, and in the end it gives a better idea of how deep is the request for images at least for every projects. But again, for people with a lot of cross-wiki activity and also off-wiki activity (I wrote a publication about images and copyright for didactics in 2009 for example) it is really bizarre to draw a line between what is valued or not.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
No Yann, direct category relevence or correlation is not a good measure of value. Cars tend to be categorised by make/model and possibly body style, but rarely, if ever, by photo view direction. Yet view direction is a desirable VI scope qualifier for car images. Most cars require at least two images to cover their external definition, which means that we usually have front and rear scopes for the same car. Buildings may need many more views to cover them as may landscape, animals, plants and other objects too. And view direction may not be an acceptable Wikidata object specifier either. DeFacto (talk). 11:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martinvl, Yann, DeFacto:: Martinvl mentioned the Wikidata notability criteria above. I was not familiar with those, but I have now read them, and I did find this policy useful. Especially one of the criteria:
  • A Wikidata item is acceptable if ...It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references...
I think this is a very useful definition, which gives a more clear definition of topics that can be notable enough to be considered valid scopes. But DeFacto is also right that often more views of the same topic is of value (rear/front view for cars), different facades of a notable building, close-up of flower, bud, entire plant for plant species, etc. So I see there can be several valid view scopes per entity following the Wikidata notability criterion. And I do not agree this would correspond one-to-one with categories. It simply gives a too deep category tree on Commons which is against the principle of simplicity in COM:CAT.
I would still very much object to it being a requirement that the equivalent entity data item exists, as it adds a barrier for those not well versed in Wikidata. It is of course to be encouraged to do that as well to avoid silo thinking, and if you are mentored into doing it, you can also learn it along the way.
But how about if we defined a valid scope for a VI as
  • A scope is valid if it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. A valid scope can optionally be augmented with aspecification of the view of the scope, if and only if different views are needed to give a full visual representation of the scope.
(Don't vote) -- Slaunger (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we are progressing... Your definition is quite good. I agree that several scopes could be acceptable for biological entities (plants, animals, etc.), and I didn't see any issue here. However they were some abuse for buildings, with several proposed (and accepted) views for simple buildings, which do not show anything really new or different. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yann. I copyedited slightly in the proposal above (and I think it may need further minor tweaks). I think it would be worthwhile to go through some promoted and declined VIs to see how the alternative scope definition fits in. Also, some derived more detailed guidance would probably be needed to further specify what the acceptable views are on a scope for various often occuring types of VIs (buildings, vehicles, living organisms, objects, etc) to avoid abuse of the view aspect. I do agree with you that our current scope definition is giving rise to recurrent problems and arguments, and it would be good to nail that down more precisely. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know this place very well so, as a test rat, I can tell that the definition of Slaunger is quite clear. You're probably on the good direction.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
About "conceptual" entity can I make a question? Take Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/themes#Guessing. Now this is a very clear gap, because we can't get a lot of good picture about "guessing" and someone has asked for them and two of us agreed. So if I bring to VI a good image similar to those described by me (the guy in a booth at a U.S.A. fair that tries to guess weight or age, people betting at a roulette table, a tourist trying to understand which door is the bathroom in an exotic country, a dog pointing at a pair of closed fists looking for the food, an adult looking suspiciously at a wrapped present, a bomb that needs to be disactivated cutting one of the wire in the last 5-10 seconds) is it ok?--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The definition of "notable" needs to be relaxed a little I think, otherwise we risk excluding valuable images of notable entities (possibly ethnic or cultural) which have not hit mainstream (western dominated?) literature and references.
Also we need to allow not only for different views, but also for different dates, different times of the day, different stages of development, different seasons and different weather. All of which can change the visual appearance of entities and any of which may be valuable in given contexts.
Then there is how we accommodate local details of entities (eg. architectural features of buildings such as doors, windows, chimneys, towers, etc.) and close-ups of components of entities.
DeFacto (talk). 15:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, There is no real issue with your first point, but problems come with your second and third points... Yann (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
In general, I agree with Yann. Different views, dates etc should only be included if they are "sufficiently notable that Wikipedia articles are written about each of the views, dates etc". For example, there are a number of articles about Winston Churchill which would permit images of him as a young man, as a wartime leader etc. We must remember that images are given VI status to assist the user of the image, not to reward the contributor, so flooding a wide-ranging category with images is counter-productive. Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This somewhat theoretical discussion is all very interesting and all, but please look at this current controversy. If we are going to have photos used to illustrate WP list articles be threatened on the basis of notability, I will oppose the new policies under discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion can not be better illustrated than by the example just given to us by Ikan Kekek. We want to arm ourselves against the excesses and already the weapons we invent turn against us. Our system is not perfect. But it works thanks to the vote. It is the vote that makes the system strong and cohesive. We need more votes than rules. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and I also believe that it is not possible to define precisely what a scope can be in purely theoretical terms. At the margins, individual judgment is needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Archaeodontosaurus too and with Ikan Kekek that scopes should not be rigidly limited and could be left to the vote, VI by VI. DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martinvl: presumably you would have voted against this image becoming a VI, given that there is no en:The construction of the Manhattan Bridge article then. We cannot be arrogant enough to assume that an image without a Wikipedia article is not worthy of inclusion as a VI. There are many, many, cultural entities, ancient works of craftsmanship, ancient works of art, historic man made objects and feats of human endeavour as well as entities from the natural world, that have not got, and possibly will never have, a Wikipedia article specifically about them - but images of them are indeed valuable. DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Martinvl:: I do not understand your very wikipedia-centric view on this. Commons is for so much more than wikipedia. But even if we just looked at wikipedia. it is often the case that more than one media file is needed in order to properly illustrate an article, thus the view specialization makes sense. Likewise, the wikipedia notability criteria are too narrow for Commons. I do agree with you though that VI plays a role in aiding repository users in finding the most relevant content for illustrating a given topic, and it makes only little sense if you have a VI for building X in winter, spring, summer, autumn, in morning sun, at noon, at sunset, at dusk, at night, from NW, from N as DeFacto seems to argue for. Different views should only be for when it gives meaning for properly illustrating the topic in its entirety. On the other hand VI also serves a role for contributors to find new topics not previously illustrated and thereby enrich Commons with a ride range of diversity. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: no, you misunderstand my point about supplementary scopes. Some interesting buildings or structures will be of interest, not only for their architectural form, but perhaps for how they look in the dark or when artificially illuminated or because of how they appear in a particular season or at a particular time of the day. I'm certainly not proposing that all buildings, not just Stonehenge, should have a summer solstice scope as well as their standard scopes or that an Autumn (Fall) image of the Eiffel tower would be as justifiable as it would be for, say, parts of New England. What I am saying is that we should not artificially limit ourselves to one scope for each object, regardless of characteristics which may make them candidates for other scopes too. DeFacto (talk). 10:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto:: OK, then we agree - I think.  -- Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: yes, It would appear that we do.  . DeFacto (talk). 11:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A thought here. Supplementary scopes are often interesting and different subjects will benefit from different things. However, how about focusing on getting the subject a primary VI with a scope of "subject" not scope: "aspect of subject", before allowing any promotions for supplementary topics?

As an examples: File:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg is a valuable image of that bridge's construction. But a good view image of that bridge, which could be promoted with scope "Manhattan Bridge" would be inherently more valuable. If there isn't a suitable VI-candidate for the broad scope in Category:Manhattan Bridge, then there is a serious omission in Commons coverage.

I suspect (and its one reason that I haven't engaged with VI) that the broad scopes are avoided by nominees because there are a large number of images available, so selection of the best option is more difficult. A narrow sub-scope allows you to get a VI badge quickly and easily, without running into competition. Picking the best image in a broad scope is more difficult and more subjective, but that is where the real value is.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the ideal scope for File:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg is Suspension bridges under construction with no reference to the Manahattan Bridge. Another of the problems with VI scopes not mentioned to date seems to be that many people do not understand the word "generic". Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martinvl: the scope you suggest for File:Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg would implicitly rule out scopes for all the useful images of the construction of all the other suspension bridges in the world. How can that be a good idea? DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: How about "Adding the deck to a suspension brige" and linking that to the same category. And yes, it woudl rule out a large number of other images - that in my opinion is what a VI is all about - to help the user identify the best image rather than to swamp him with hundreds of images. Martinvl (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martinvl: if you don't allow VI scopes for likely uses, how can a user identify the best image? If you needed an image for your article about the young Churchill, would you be happy to use an image of "a young person", rather than an image of the young Churchill himself? The general case is of very limited use when the vast majority of articles are, by their very nature, specific. I can see no merit in seriously limiting usability and value by prohibiting usefully specific scopes. Remember too that the VI scope is actually the whole text of the scope field, and not just the linked category or gallery name - so a different text, even if linked to the same category, is nevertheless a different scope. DeFacto (talk). 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: You do raise one point that has concerned me to a degree. In the case of Churchill, there are a number of articles, so I woudl be quite happy for there to be one VI per article. In addition, if an article exceeds say 50 kbytes, then there might well be scope to allow a second VI for that article - in fact the VI guideline do provide for that see Commons:Valued image scope#buildings. Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the "Manhattan Bridge under construction" is a perfectly valid, and useful, subject to illustrate and is therefore a reasonable scope for VI. However, a notional VI for the scope "Manhattan Bridge" would be more valuable. Likewise with Churchill - a photo of a school-aged Churchill is great. But picking out image suitable for VI on the overall "Winston Churchill" is even more useful. In both cases, VI could be more useful, for more people, if it worked on the broader scopes and got them sorted before worrying about specific. A generic "bridge under construction" scope is also likely to be useful, but subject-based rather than activity-based is more likely to be useful for more uses.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Martinvl, DeFacto, Nilfanion: In your discussion it appears that you are missing the point that the same image can be a VI within several scopes. For instance, this image is a VI within both the scopes 'Kaaba' and 'Tawaf'. Likewise, the Manhattan bridge picture you are discussing could in principle be a VI within all of the following scopes: 'Manhattan bridge under construction', 'Suspension bridges under construction', 'Historical images of bridges under construction', 'Manhattan Bridge', 'Bridge', 'Manhattan', 'Historical images of Manhattan'. I say in principle, because the wider the scope the more difficult it is to find the VI, as it becomes more and more subjective - and there are more and more images to select between. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: I get that, but what I don't agree with is the idea that we should only have one VI image to cover all bridge building construction needs, and that we should not accept different valued images for different bridges under construction. DeFacto (talk). 19:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: I mention specifically above that the same image could be a VI within both the scopes 'Manhattan bridge under construction' and 'Bridges under construction'. I am not saying that having the more general scope rules out the more specific scopes, if they are relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: we are still in agreement then, I think.   DeFacto (talk). 19:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Yes, It would appear that we are.   -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: Overly narrow scopes may be easy to select but their utility tails off rapidly. For things like buildings, people or ships - the natural unit is the individual, as each individual entity has distinct interest. For animals or planes or the natural unit is a larger group as specific individuals are rarely of interest. When it comes to overly narrow scopes, those scopes that are obviously sub-topics of a single entity are less valuable than the topic that is the entity as a whole. The difficulty of selecting a broad scope VI is precisely why VI should try to do so - the purpose of VI ought to be to help someone looking for the best image among dozens, not a rubber stamp to say this image is the only one on Commons and it shows its subject adequately.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion:: I agree with you that finding the VIs for the broader scopes is interesting, and should be encouraged. But I object to calling the VIs for narrrow scopes 'rubber stamps'. It may be 'easy' to get the VI once you have come to the point of having uploaded a picture, which fulfills criteria and shows something new, which is worth a scope. It may still have been challenging to get that 'new' material and as long as we get an increasing diversity in topics we illustrate I am fine if getting a VI can motivate some contributors. But a feature I would like is that if there was a VI with the exact same category which you are browsing it would be shown first in the list of images in that category and it would have a small VI icon. That would help the repository users to find the VIs relevant at a specific category level and make the more general VIs more noticeable without being 'spammed' by very specific VIs in either the same category or in underlying sub-categories found by using the FastCCI tool. That could also help motivate users finding the VIs for the more general categories. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Slaunger: My concern is with those scopes that are overly narrow, while an over-arching, broader scope isn't actually addressed - and that the project is systematically geared to work in that manner, chipping off small 'easy' ones and missing the big 'important' ones. With the Manhattan Bridge example, a notional VI which has a scope of just "Manhattan Bridge" is more useful, for more users, than the construction image. That doesn't mean the construction image shouldn't be a VI, but the failure to identify a VI for the bridge itself is a problem, why isn't there one? If the scope of the VI is word-for-word identical to the category, I agree it would be great to promote it - maybe a sort key of ! could be used - but if there is any clarifying text you immediately introduce the spam risk. .--Nilfanion (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Commons has minimal notability criteria - the link to "Commons:Notability" is redirected to Commons:Project scope. However, the opening line of the page Commons:Valued images has the phrase "for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects". It is therefore self-evident that VI's are to be useful, they should comply with the requirements of other Wikimedia projects, one of which is notability. Notability is well described in both the English and the German Wikipedias, so that make a very good reference point against which to judge the relevance of a scope. Martinvl (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinvl:: Commons:Project scope contains also what is equivalent to notability criteria on Wikipedia. It is an official policy and a lot of effort has gone into developing it. And it is and should be much wider in scope, than the scope for the wikipedias. The notability criteria on the Wikipedias are obviously focused on assuring that the content is encyclopedic, but there are Wikimedia several projects, which are not encyclopedic and which Commons also serves, like Wikivoyage. Therefore it is too narrow use the notability criteria for the Wikipedias. The notability criteria for Wikidata are closer as discussed above as wikidata has an equivalent wide scope. See also Commons:Valued image value#Does "most valuable" imply the highest encyclopedic value?, where this is clearly spelled out. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank your for this discussion, that helped me, who am quite new to the VI process to understand a lot of nuances! --Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Martinvl, as Slaunger explains, Commons is not simply an arm of Wikipedia. I am an admin on Wikivoyage, a Wikimedia site that has very different standards of what an article is [how do you pipelink a Wikivoyage article here?], or perhaps more precisely, what topics can be articles, and we are looking for photos that illustrate interesting things about the places covered in the article. I neither understand why you would treat Commons as an arm of Wikipedia, governed by Wikipedia's standards of unoriginal research, nor do I support the idea. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As for the discussion of the picture of the Manhattan Bridge under construction, it wouldn't make any sense for that to be the VI of the Manhattan Bridge, period. For that, a picture of the completed bridge would be much more appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
In terms of Nilfanion's concern about finding images that illustrate overarching concepts: See how I illustrated Wikivoyage:Traveling with high blood pressure. As I recall, I never looked for a VI under the scope "blood pressure" or "traveling with high blood pressure"]. Instead, I looked for photos under the scopes of crudites, blood pressure monitors, Mount Everest, kangkung belacan or something similar, and I think I found that great photo of the long Swiss wooden bridge just by looking through FPs - truthfully, I don't remember how I found it, but it certainly wouldn't be a logical VI for the scope "traveling with high blood pressure". When you write or edit articles on concepts that aren't amenable to direct depiction, you need a little imagination, and I think that VIs with discrete, clear scopes are actually the most helpful, because can you imagine any or all of these being put in the scope "high blood pressure"? OK, yes, maybe one: The blood pressure monitor with the hypertensive reading. But it was sufficiently useful, in my opinion, to find that under the category of blood pressure monitors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I have only just read this lengthy debate about VI, having not been pinged by anyone. It seems that all contributors are making suggestions for the good of the VI project, which does not appear to be going 'from bad to worse'. Voting, commenting, (or abstaining) is surely the best way to stop abuses or misunderstandings. On a separate subject, @Ikan Kekek:, the article you edited with skill (and I'm not criticising you), Wikivoyage:Traveling with high blood pressure, is to me a very dangerous article. It is surely irresponsible to offer this sort of medical, or pseudo-medical, advice, with no citations or references. The advice could be sensible. It could also be dangerous. Of course on Wikipedia, it could be quickly rejected as OR or sprinkled with citation needed comments. I wonder if someone could sue an editor if they followed the advice in this article, then died? Charles (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess you're right that there should be a big disclaimer right at the beginning of the article stating that this article is informational only and that to be safe, anyone with high blood pressure needs to check with their doctor for advice specific to their own situation. However, it seems difficult to exclude the topic from a travel guide. There are loads of bad things that can happen while a person is traveling - or staying home. Could someone sue a travel guide for saying that X or Y is a very safe city, if they then happen to be one of the very few crime victims there in a particular year? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Charles, do you mind if I copy your remarks to that article's talk page for discussion there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Go ahead Ikan Kekek :) Charles (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily limit?Edit

QI project has a banner limiting nominations to 5 per day. With fewer contributors/voters at VI, should we have a limit here of 3 per day? Charles (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we have an issue with too many nominations now? If not this seems to a solution is search of a problem... Yann (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Martinvl (talk)
5 images were nominated by one user today/yesterday. Charles (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Illustrating Women, Filling the GapsEdit

Hi, This is a new project which also concerns COM:VI. Please help fill in Category:Valued images of women. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Valued images and thumbnail sizeEdit

In this thread, a side discussion of thumbnail size is taking place. I'm sure Colin wouldn't mind if I quote him:

"On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of 'thumbnail' size is obsolete."

If "thumbnail size" is already obsolete, how should we be judging value, or should we even continue with the Valued Images project and designation? Should we simply be looking for the clearest file with the highest resolution (especially FPs and QIs) and totally ignoring how photos look as thumbnails? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thumbnails are generated automatically. The problem can be discussed but not in VI. An image can not be judged on a thumbnail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
How do you judge which image is most useful, keeping in mind that when people read Wikipedia articles, they generally aren't seeing the file at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section Preferences you go to appearance and you can set the display to a thumbnail of 400px by default. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not very familiar with the VI critiera. I assume you are referring to "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). " I'm a bit puzzled by this since the VIC template code is set to "portrait=120|panorama=277|160" and so produces really tiny thumbs on the candidate page. These are much much smaller than the 480x360 size mentioned in the criteria. If Ikan you have only been looking at these tiny 120px portrait thumbs when judging for quality, then that doesn't sound like you are judging at the right size, which would be 3x larger at least. Archaeodontosaurus, it doesn't appear that the preferences affect the the thumbnail size for VI candidates, as the values are hard-coded. Should the candidate page be revised to use larger thumbs? I would suggest it does. I also note that this critiera is merely a minimum quality threshold and the "valued image" still requires it to be the best image on Commons for the subject, which will almost certainly require looking at it in a larger size when comparing to others. Also, Ikan, you seem to be judging VI based on how the image looks on Wikipedia articles in a standard thumb. I would suggest that that is a narrow view of VI, which is not a Wikipedia project. My guess is that the minimum size threshold has been arived at what would be suitable for general online use (which includes wikipedia, blogs, newspapers, etc) rather than high-quality printing such as for books and magazines.
I understand that my Wikipedia thumbnail defaults (300px) are higher than the default which is 220px [my Commons thumbnail is 400px but that is often quite large for Wikipedia articles], though using a high DPI screen doubles all those values. The MediaWiki software is among the best at handling a high DPI screen but is not alone in considering this when deciding what sized image to use when rendering a page. Generally a high DPI screen requires 1.5 or 2x the image size to render the page layout the same as for a standard DPI screen.
The fact that the criteria size is called "a standard 4:3 landscape image" suggests these requirements were defined many moons ago when that was what compact cameras produced and TVs were shaped. Perhaps a 600x400 / 400x600 size would be more appopriate for now and immediate future? -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually look at all VI candidates at full screen on my laptop as well as thumbnail size, but I do try to keep in mind what they're likely to look like on a Wikipedia page. But if I judged all candidates by how they look at full screen, then smaller files would inevitably be at a much greater disadvantage than they are now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment that a higher resolution file may not actually have more detail than a somewhat smaller one (due to softness, noise, etc) then surely when comparing to see if a candidate is the best on Commons for that topic, then the smaller file is rightly at a disadvantage. It has less detail so has less educational information. However, other aspects such as lighting, position, crop, etc, may be positives for a smaller image where one decides it is the better image. I don't think you should compare two images at thumbnail size. The requirement is only that it "looks good at review size 480x360" to judge whether it is acceptable at all.
Ping User:Slaunger wrt to the issue where the candidate list has tiny thumbs. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image) refers to the review page of a single nomination, not the smaller images on the candidate list. Each candidate has a link to the review page on that list right below the image. Template:VIC has {{#switch:{{{orientation|landscape}}}|portrait=360|panorama=830|480}}, so it defaults to 480px wide. Template:VIC-thumb has the smaller dimensions you mention above, but it is only used when the review page is included in the candidates list. We might want to clarify that sentence a bit, explixitely referring to the review page and the candidates list …
I'm not opposed to increasing the default review size a bit, as long as it stays reasonable. For reference, it seems you need about 1200 × 1800 px (= 2.16 Mpx) to make a classic standard 4×6-inch-sized print at 300 DPI [1]. That should be sufficient for most educational on- and offline needs (OK, you'll need an inch more in width if you'd want to use it as a double-column image in Nature: [2]). That would probably not fit into the review page on smaller devices, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks El Grafo for the clarification. Glad that the thumbs on the candidate page are not regarded as the "review size" thumbs. Perhaps the sizes could be increased a little to 400 for portrait width, 600 for landscape width and 900 for panorama width. I think I'm happy with VI's online-usage emphasis (if I'm reading this correctly) since pixel-peeping high-resolution photos seems to cause QI to reject many perfectly good and usable images. As long as VI is selecting the best we have on Commons, at a size that is at least usable online, then anything more (such as great quality for print) is a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Colin, Ikan Kekek, El Grafo: You are indeed supposed to review a VIC at nomination file page resolution, not in the overview thumbnail size, nor at full resolution. The idea being that typically in a wikipedia project article for online use the mage would not be larger than stated in the current guideline. The idea also being that if you have, e.g., a mobile phone camera which typically has a lot of pixel-noise and an excessively large pixel resolution, it would be OK at the review size as due to the downsampling the noise would be suppressed a lot giving an acceptable quality assuming other aspects of the photographs (lightning, sharpness, illustrates subject well) were OK. That said, the current review size was established 9 years ago, and I would support stepping up the review size moderately to follow the normal progression in image resolutions. The dimensions Colin proposes are pretty good, although I think 480 pixel width for portraits, 640 pixel width for landscape and 1000 pixel width for panorama would be more suitable. It corresponds roughly from going from HVGA (320x480, 0.15 Mpixel) to VGA (480x640, 0.3 Mpixel) review resolution. We could also step up further to an SVGA (600x800, 0.5 Mpixel). This progression of review resolution roughly corresponds to how resolution has evolved naturally on displays over a time span of the VI project. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I've been looking at the thumbnail size on the file page, not the VIC page, and then I have also been looking at the full-page image on my laptop. I sometimes look at full size, but mostly if I'm considering whether the photo should be nominated at QIC or FPC or if it's simply enjoyable or interesting enough for me to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: Ok, you are of course free to look at at image at any size you want, but for the purpose of a reviewing an image for VI, you are supposed to follow the "Review it!" link on the thumbnial overview page as this will guide you to the VIC nomination subpage for the VIC under review, where it is displayed in the review resolution for VI. It is in this review resolution that it shall illustrate the scope better than any other image and comply with the other VI criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd been using the file page's thumbnail, not the "Review it!" link. Now that I've changed the thumbnail default size to 400px, the file page thumbnail size is sometimes a lot bigger than the "Review it!" thumbnail size, which doesn't seem to be responding to my change in preferences for default thumbnail size. So I think it's probably best for me to continue reviewing from the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing pageEdit

Why is there no Commons:Valued image candidates/Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg page? I want to oppose the nomination and make the point that of the 3 photos from that view, File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg, which is bigger than the nominated File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg and in better light than File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Gebouw bij centrale Malga Mare 01.jpg, would appear to be best in scope. However, I really don't understand the scope, because what does "Business surface" mean? The most useful view of this side of the building, though viewed from a different angle, is actually File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 45.jpg, so I would consider that that picture should be the VI, although the scope needs to be restated in clear English. But how do I actually vote and put this in the review, when the review page is a red link? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I took a look at this and see that the problem is that the candidate page was created for "File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg", but after creation was internally modified by another editor to point to the ...42.jpg file (in this edit) without renaming the candidate page to match, and so was corrupted. So the link is red because it's looking for a *42 candidate page, which doesn't exist. DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DeFacto. So what's the solution? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: there is a choice of two possibilities as I see it. 1) change it all back, 2) rename the candidate page to match the contents. We possibly need input from the nominator to know what they want to do and of the second editor to know why the change was made. DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Agnes, any input? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

VIs of age-dependent imagesEdit

@Olivier LPB: @Ikan Kekek: @Archaeodontosaurus: @Smihael: @Palauenc05: @Berthold Werner: @Moheen Reeyad: @Jacek Halicki: @Famberhorst: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Lucasbosch: @Llez: @Jebulon: @Moroder: @DeFacto: @Halavar: @JLPC: @Lucas.Belo: @Yann: @FredD: @Palauenc05: @Carschten: @Masum-al-hasan: @Slaunger: @Martin Falbisoner: @Smihael:

How should we define scopes of age-related images? Animals are quite simple. Adult is the default and is not mentioned - we have immature, juvenile, baby and I had one Equus quagga burchellii (Burchell's zebra) male, one day old. But what about things that decay - especially people. There are a lot of VIs being promoted of people. In many cases these local politicians who are 'notable' only for a short time, but what about Winston Churchill, Mick Jagger, Shirley Temple or HM The Queen? There could hundreds for each. Don't we need some better guidelines: both on who is 'entitled' to a VI and how many each should have? Charles (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there should be more than 2 or 3 VI for any single person. Usually one for young age, one for mature age, 3 different periods in special cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Yann's got it. But no hard and fast rule, because in some cases, it could be valuable to show actors playing a dozen roles or more in different costumes and makeup (but that's not quite the same as age-defined differences in scope). I don't know, I think no standardization is necessary. What I would propose is simply that each scope defined by age be recognizably different from the others. I think juvenile monkeys are quite recognizably different from infant monkeys, but I don't think that we should normally have a different scope for a 12-month-old human baby and a 13-month-old human baby. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If the scopes of different ages are 'visually distinct' they are acceptable. Visually distinct is somewhat fuzzy I know, but I think it is quite line with the statements of Yann and Ikan Kekek above. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a numerical limit, but that the criterion should be that they are visually distinct. So a bearded/unbearded portrait or various ages or various states of decay, or whatever - just so long as there is a potential use and an agreed (per the vote) visual difference. DeFacto (talk). 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that each image should bring its peculiarities that differentiate it from the others, and the age can be a differential in an image. But standardizing the number of images already awarded can be harmful if a new image has many attributes. Good judgment in this case should be considered, avoiding the loss of an image of value and the exaggeration in the number of winning images of the same person with the same hetary range. I believe that this posture is relevant to the notoriety of images with value and good scopes. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Still no one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued image set candidatesEdit

Any word on the return of Valued image sets? Philip Terry Graham (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Determining scope on multiple images of individual personsEdit

After the failed nom on one image of Donald Tusk and on images of Neil Patrick Harris, maybe I need help on determining an appropriate scope on bio pictures before re-nominating them. If helping on individual nominations is ineffective, how do we handle images that belong in similar categories? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In the case of Neil Patrick Harris, I think it is very silly to move all images into subcategories. It makes choosing an image for an article (and for VI) very difficult. In the case of Donald Tusk, the best solution is to create a category Category:Portraits of Donald Tusk, and copy all portraits there. Then a candidate can be chosen among them. See an example of a VI for a person with many potential candidates. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Created Category:Portrait photographs of Donald Tusk. I'll re-nominate this soon. Thanks for the advice. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".