Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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.

Withholding a vote of a photo you believe should be a VIEdit

Can everyone please respect the consensus that currently being used outside of Commons is not a criterion for whether a photo should be promoted to Valued Image? If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper. Can we all please stop doing that? This kind of behavior corrodes the project and the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And so as not to have an oblique and theoretical discussion, have a look at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that adding rules that don't exist merely results in exactly what Ikan Kekek just said. This is true in VI, Commons, any other wiki project, our real life paying jobs, real life organizations we belong to, etc. I would also like to say that I truly appreciate all the people who've been helping me learn the ins and outs of VI; they know who they are as I've thanked them before. But on this one issue we should be more "in the same boat". PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
We must have the right to vote in compliance with the rules we have all agreed to. Voting should not be mandatory, we are not robots who record appointments. I maintain that I do not wish to vote for unused images, has a personal choice that only conspects me. I have also chosen not to intervene on subjects that I do not know. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely with Archaeodontosaurus. I also try not to get involved with images of subjects I have no expertise in, which includes those of plants and insects. As individuals too, we all have our own personal preferences and dislikes, and points of view as to what "the most valuable illustration" must be, or must not be. There is no rule broken in deciding, based on personal criteria, not to support an image nomination, or even in deciding to oppose one. DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys are intent on enforcing through the back door a proposed rule that was shot down by consensus? This isn't about likes or dislikes in terms of the picture itself. This is a case in which you believe the picture is best in scope and deserves to be a VI, but you refuse to vote for it for extraneous reasons that are specifically excluded by consensus as criteria. It's specifically and pointedly an attempt to sabotage the Wiki guideline of respecting and operating in good faith as part of a consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ikan is spot on here. PumpkinSky talk 09:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: no, I do not support usage being a mandated VI requirement, and was happy that rule proposal was rejected. However, what I do support is the right of an editor to decide for themselves whether they consider an image to be "the most valuable illustration" within the given scope - which is a very subjective decision anyway - and whether they will support it. And it is quite reasonable to expect a rationale for an 'oppose' vote, but I'm not sure we should be demanding a justification for not giving a 'support' vote. DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. It's not likely to be possible to force anyone to vote for a photo they believe deserves to be a VI, but do you really disagree that good faith demands that people take it upon themselves to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
They are free to do so if they want, as I am free to vote or not. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but with all due respect to all of the really helpful things you do, you are acting in bad faith in these kinds of situations, and it is unhelpful to the project and to sustaining the Wiki spirit of moving forward by consensus. In effect, you are being passive-aggressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
We agree that we must rely on consensus. I do not think that imposing a vote, mandatory and positive, is a consensual idea.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that anyone be forced to vote. I'm suggesting that by withholding your vote for a photo you believe should be a VI, you are operating in bad faith, and that anyone who thinks a photo should be a VI, as a matter of integrity and Wiki spirit, needs to take it upon themselves to vote for that photo without extraneous reservations based on a proposed new policy that was shot down. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion that comes from Surrealism. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you truly not understand my point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This suggestion is a very interesting intellectual construction that can make us discuss for hours, I am very admiring the surreal movement, but there is no psosibility that there can be an action in reality. You can not get into people's minds and their vote remains free. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, people remain free to act in what I consider bad faith, according to their conscience. I don't understand why you're focusing on that, rather than the substance of what I brought up at the very beginning of this thread, which is not "people should be made by force to vote for x, y and z" but "If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper." The onus falls on every individual to act within the spirit as well as the letter of the consensus and not deliberately undermine it by behaving as if your losing position is an additional unwritten rule. I think it's quite unfortunate that no-one else but PumpkinSky agrees with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My position has a meaning, that is the point that you did not address. I try to encourage photographers to get involved in the content of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is the purpose of our work. The vast majority of images we have in COMMONS is useless, hence the label; But it is not the label that will make "live" the image is its use that will do it. If you believe in the usefulness of your images, then submit to the reality of placement of the image in the encyclopedias. If it "survives": it has an effective utility. It is better an actual and proven reality than a reality that is supposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First, no, Wikipedia is not the only reason for the VI designation. Creative Commons images can be used on any website with attribution. Second, requiring an image to be put into a Wikipedia article before it's determined to be best in scope puts the cart before the horse. The whole point, in my mind, is to determine which is best, whereupon it would make sense for a thumbnail of it to be used in appropriate articles. But third, there is a huge difference between encouraging people to insert thumbnails into articles and making that insertion a prerequisite for VI status, which is the very thing that was roundly voted down when proposed on this very page. By all means, encourage. That's fine, but it's missing the point of this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's obvious nothing has changed at VI and likely won't. Very sad. PumpkinSky talk 10:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I've only just come across this discussion. I generally only vote on images that interest me and when I can be bothered to check out all the images in the category gallery. I will sometimes help establish rules for other subjects (such as motor cars). I will not generally vote for photos of people (see previous discussions). Nothing would compel me to vote if I don't want to. Charles (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Valued images and thumbnail size [Unarchived thread]Edit

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)

[unindent] - This thread was probably prematurely archived. We have twice in recent weeks had rather bitter threads on VIC in which those of us who are using 400px thumbnails to judge photos are being attacked as if we have just creating a nonsensical new rule out of thin air, when all we are doing is following the existing guidelines, as per Slaunger's remark above. You folks need to propose a new rule of what we are judging and how. My understanding is that the reason for using a thumbnail size to judge photos nominated at VIC is that they are being judged solely in terms of how they look as thumbnails in Wikipedia or other online articles, and on no other basis. You - and I'm particularly talking about you, Archaeodontosaurus - need to stop attacking others for upholding the existing rule, and instead, you need to propose a new standard that is based on something other than your ad hoc individual judgment, and which remains a clearly different standard from the ones on QIC and FPC, if VI is still to mean anything. Please go ahead and start a new thread for the proposed new rule, if you like. I'd be happy to consider it, but I will not engage in de facto nullification of the rule ad hoc, no matter how strongly you object in individual VIC nomination threads. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This point had never been problematic for years, it has appeared in recent months. It is in this sense that I find it inappropriate and artificial. The right size of the examination is the one that makes good judgment; Everyone should be free to examine the image at the size that he sees fit.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not what the rule says. If you don't like the rule and won't fix it, at least stop attacking people for applying it. Meanwhile, I'd encourage anyone else who is troubled by this recurring argument to propose a new rule. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, can you point us to the recent "rather bitter threads" please. DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see what the misunderstanding/dispute is and I don't see a need for a rule change. If a reviewer is happy that an image meets the 6 criteria, then the reviewer is free to use their own instincts to decide if the image is the best available in the given scope - it is inevitably a subjective decision. DeFacto (talk). 11:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The dispute is that in spite of the existing rule, some users insist that it is perfectly OK to judge what photo is more useful on some basis other than judging the thumbnail size to review. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't read it as a rule in that way. We are free when reaching a subjective judgement to view the image as we choose. Disagreements can be resolved by discussion, consensus or balance of supports/opposes. DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What size are we supposed to understand the review size - the only size that "matters" - to be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The size of the "review size" seems perfectly clearly explained to me, and if the image doesn't look good on-screen at that size, then it should be opposed. However, if there is more than one image in the scope that does fulfil all the criteria, then the reviewer clearly needs to use some other criteria to arrive at a decision. DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree, if they look equally good at the thumbnail review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is:
'3. Must illustrate its subject well.'
Although the emphasis for a VI is on its value, it is still expected that the image is of a reasonable technical quality and standard. For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. The technical standard required should be achievable by any photographer who has taken care over the image. This means:
1. Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view
2. No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario)
3. The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered.
I propose the follwing new wording: changes are in bold italics

'3. Must illustrate its subject well.'
Although the emphasis for a VI is on its value, it is still expected that the image is of a reasonable technical quality and standard. For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. The technical standard required should be achievable by any photographer who has taken care over the image. This means:
1. Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view
2. No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario)
3. The image must look good on-screen on the Review Page (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Note: Click on the Review Page link under the VI cxandidate image.
4. Its usability in printed format is not considered.

Please note that there is no mention of the word thumbnail in these criteria Charles (talk)

I think you are misunderstanding (maybe because I'm using the wrong word) what I actually do, which is to look at the image's page. That's the thumbnail size I'm using. The "review page" often produces an image that's too small for me to really see, and smaller than what would be used on, say, a Wikipedia page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a misunderstanding. When I refer to thumbnail I refer to the image that appears on page [:] or on any article with a standard taxon box. Charles (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that's way too small to judge. I do not judge that size of thumbnail. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Here we have the very type of the false problem. We have constructed an artificial polemic. Let us consciously judge each image with the guiding values that have been recommended but which should not be erected as dogma. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is a file rename note required somewhere?Edit

From time to time we get a red link appearing in thecCandidate list (we have one at the moment for "Commons:Valued image candidates/Balkan fritilliary (Boloria graeca balcanica) Bulgaria.jpg"). I think these are usually caused when the underlying image file has been moved (renamed) without the corresponding candidate review page ("Commons:Valued image candidates/xxx.jpg") being similarly moved (renamed). Should we perhaps add a note to the VI process somewhere to cover this eventuality? Something like this:

If you move (rename) an image file that is a VI candidate you must also move (rename) the corresponding candidate review page to match.

DeFacto (talk). 10:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Was ist ein wertvolles Bild?Edit

Hallo miteinander,

unter einem „wertvollen“ Bild einer bedeutenden Person, eines Gegenstandes, einer Pflanze oder eines Ereignisses für Commons verstehe ich, dass es aussagekräftig ist, Seltenheitswert hat und nicht wiederholbar ist. Aus dieser Überlegung heraus stellte ich vor vier Jahren ein Foto des nach einer Havarie in Koblenz gesunkenen und quer im Rhein liegenden Schaufelraddampfers Mainz vor.

Als ich mich dieser Tage an die „Valued images“ erinnerte, dachte ich unter anderem an Fotos, die ich vor 41 Jahren während der Bauzeit des Kernkraftwerkes Mülheim-Kärlich machte. Ein vergleichbares gibt es meines Wissens in den Commons nicht. Ich habe das Bild inzwischen vorgestellt, erfülle aber offensichtlich nicht die offiziellen Kriterien für eine positive Bewertung.

Wenn ich es recht verstehe, musste ich eine möglichst eng gefasste Kategorie erstellen, damit das Bild als bestes „in scope“ gelten kann. Das genügt aber anscheinend nicht. Bemängelt wird nämlich, dass außer der KKW-Baustelle eine Kapelle zu sehen und damit eine weitere Kategorie erfasst ist. Mein Versuch zu erläutern, dass Kapelle und Baustelle zusammengehören, wurde wegen meines schlechten Englisch wahrscheinlich nicht verstanden; deshalb hier noch eine ergänzende Erklärung: Das Areal, auf dem das Kernkraftwerk steht, gehörte weitgehend der Kirchengemeinde, und eine der Bedingungen für den Erwerb war, dass die Kapelle stehen blieb. Der neue Eigentümer ging noch weiter und renovierte sie aufwendig, legte das Gelände rundum neu an und stellte das Kirchlein in seinen Werbebroschüren heraus.

Nach meiner Erfahrung mit dieser Bewerbung hat es anscheinend wenig Sinn, verhältnismäßig selten Fotografiertes oder zumindest in den Commons wenig Vorgestelltes auszuwählen und zu präsentieren. Erfolgversprechender für die Kennzeichnung als „Valued image“ ist es wahrscheinlich, irgendetwas Allgemeines auf die Bewertungskriterien ausgerichtet zu fotografieren, es in eine bisher noch nicht existierende Kategorie zu stellen und als bestes Foto in dieser (neuen) Kategorie zu deklarieren, egal, ob noch ähnliche Bilder vom selben Motiv hinterherkommen.

Ich frage mich nur, ob das Projekt ursprünglich so gedacht war.

Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo @Spurzem:, ich fang mal hinten an: Wenn ein neues, besseres Bild dazukommt kann und soll das freilich das bestehende VI ablösen. Inwiefern es überhaupt Sinn macht in Kategorien wie Pilea mollis ein VI zu krönen, sei mal dahingestellt (in dem Fall habe ich mich gegen eine Nominierung entschieden, fand ich irgendeiw albern). Eine der Hauptaufgaben von VI ist mMn eher das Gegenteil: von einem Objekt oder Typ von Objekten bei dem es zahlreiche Alternativen gibt (z.B. Category:Fagus sylvatica) das für Weiternutzer nützlichste markieren, so dass es schnell (z.B. mittels FastCCI) gefunden werden kann. Wenn ein Bild Seltenheitswert hat und nicht wiederholbar ist, kann das natürlich auch ein Grund sein, es als VI zu markieren, vorausgesetzt es zeigt etwas das tatsächlich von Interesse ist. Ein Bild das zeigt wie Michael Jackson damals sein Kind aus dem Fenster hat baumeln lassen wäre sicher gut geeignet, ein Bild das zeigt wie Bauer Horst mal den Ferrari seines Nachbarn fahren durfte wohl eher nicht (um es mal ganz überspitzt zu formulieren).
Mit dem scope ist das so eine Sache. Er soll ausdrücklich nicht eine detaillierte Beschreibung des Bildes sein, sondern eine Art Kategorie von Bildern definieren innehalb dieser das vorgeschlagene Bild das beste ist. Dabei gilt es abzuwägen zwischen "zu allgemein" und "zu spezifisch". "Musiker" ist sicherlich zu allgemein, "Kirk Hammet spielt einen E-Moll-Akkord auf einer Jackson Explorer auf Rock am Ring 2012" ist sicherlich viel zu spezifisch. Eine Faustregel die sich für mich bewährt hat (und sinngemäß auch in COM:VISC steht) ist, den scope so zu wählen dass er etwas beschreibt nach dem ein Artikelschreiber auf (z.B.) Wikipedia realistischerweise suchen würde. Ich versuche daher VI nicht als Auszeichnung für mich, sondern als Hilfestellung für Bildersuchende zu sehen und bin damit bisher recht gut gefahren. Wenn's hilft biete ich gerne an da hin und wieder mal vorab meinen Senf dazuzugeben – garantieren kann ich natürlich nichts, da jeder das Konzept "scope" ein wenig anders auslegt.
Um dein Beispiel mit dem KKW aufzugreifen: Für den uneingeweihten wären, unabhängig vom tatsächlichen Bild, erstmal sowohl Mülheim-Kärlich Nuclear Power Plant under construction als auch Kapelle/Chapel Am Guten Mann (Mülheim-Kärlich) separat für sich erstmal sinnvolle scopes gewesen. Bei diesem spezifischen Bild kam dann aber natürlich die Frage auf, was denn die Kapelle auf einem Atomkraftwerk-Bild zu suchen hat und umgekehrt. Was die beiden miteinander zu tun haben, ist für den unbedarften Betrachter leider nicht offensichtlich. Da hätte es nach Commons:VICR einer ausführlichen Bildbschreibung bedurft, dann hätte das evtl. klappen können. Idealerweise auf englisch (da kann man sich ja im Zweifel vorher Hilfe holen), und bei komplexeren Sachverhalten macht es durchaus Sinn das alles nochmal im reason=-Feld darzustellen (falls der reviewer die Bildbeschreibung nicht liest). Ohne genauere Beschreibung hätten es z.B. diese zwei Nominierungen vermutlich deutlich schwerer gehabt ;-)
Fazit: Wenn man "Bapperl" sammeln will fährt man wahrscheinlich tatsächlich am besten wenn man Bilder von semi-interessanten, selten fotografierten (aber bekannten oder einfach zu verstehenden) Objekten vorschlägt – oder vielleicht besser gleich zu QI gehen, da gibt's Bapperl im Überfluss. Wenn man echte oder vermeintliche Schätzchen vorstellt, sollte man den reviewern das nötige Hintergrundwissen vermitteln, sonst ist eine Ablehnung praktisch vorprogrammiert. Zu gu­ter Letzt: Ich halte die direkte Übersetzung "Valued Images" → "Wertvolle Bilder" für nicht ganz treffend, "besonders nützlich" entspräche da vielleicht eher der Realität. Beste Grüße, --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Danke für Deine umfangreiche Antwort. In einigen Punkten liegen unsere Auffassungen von Valued images dicht beieinander, hier und da aber nicht unbedingt. Zum einen fällt mir auf, dass manche Objekte fotografiert und im Hinblick auf VI speziell Kategorien angelegt werden, um möglichst das eine beste Bild präsentieren zu können. Das kann aber nicht Sinn des Projekts sein. Meines Erachtens sollten Fotos als VI gekennzeichnet (nicht unbedingt „ausgezeichnet“) werden, die von einem weitreichenden Interesse sein könnten und nicht oder kaum wiederholbar sind.
Möglicherweise von Interesse und nicht wiederholbar ist zum Beispiel mein Foto des havarierten Rheindampfers. Von dem Bild von Kenneth Spencer hatte ich angenommen, es sei das einzige in den Commons; es gibt allerdings noch ein weiteres, auf dem der Sänger in einem Ensemble zu sehen ist. Auch diese historische Aufnahme ist nach meiner Meinung „wertvoll“. Dasselbe gilt wahrscheinlich für meine Bilder von Motorsportszenen und Porträts berühmter Rennfahrer.
Die Schwierigkeiten bei der Bewertung der Kernkraftwerkbaustelle Mülheim-Kärlich verstehe ich nicht. Das Objekt bewegte über Jahrzehnte die Gemüter weit über den Standort hinaus. Und für die weitgehende Gelassenheit der Einheimischen war die Kapelle eine der Ursachen. Sie blieb nämlich nicht nur stehen, wie es in den Bedingungen für den Erwerb des Geländes stand, sondern der KKW-Betreiber renovierte sie in hervorragender Weise, ergänzt durch neue Außenanlagen. Von daher schien mir das Kirchlein im Gesamtbild seine Berechtigung zu haben.
Aber ich will jetzt nicht um eine positive Bewertung betteln oder gar kämpfen. Ich nehme es hin, dass zum Beispiel das weitgehend unbekannte Haus Nr. 25 in der Burgstraße von Dingsdorf mit eigener Kategorie wertvoller ist. ;-) Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Deine Ablehnung meines Jim-Clark-Fotos und die Anmerkungen von Archaeodontosaurus zu dem Regazzoni-Foto lassen mich spüren, dass ich im Projekt Valued image candidates unpassend, um nicht zu sagen unerwünscht bin. Ich werde Euch deshalb mit meinen nach Eurer Meinung stümperhaften Bildchen nicht mehr belästigen und nur noch hier und da meine Meinung zu dem sagen, was Ihr für „wertvoll“ haltet, zum Beispiel irgendein Haus in irgendeiner Stadt, mit aktueller Digitalkamera fotografiert und in eine eigens angelegte Kategorie eingeordnet. Übrigens: Ich hatte in Klammern das blaue Hemd als Hinweis und nicht als Bildbeschreibung genannt, weil nicht anzunehmen ist, dass heute jeder Jim Clark noch kennt. Wenn es Dir als gravierender Fehler erschien, hättest Du es entfernen können. Aber wie gesagt: Ich gehöre hier offensichtlich nicht hin. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".