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.

Where to put Most Valued Reviews?Edit

This is confusing:

Can we please merge that to a single place for MVRs? --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Does nobody have an opinion on this? Let's try it this way: if noone objects, I'll remove the most values section from the normal candidate list and replace it with a link to Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list. --El Grafo (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
For my part I am very favorable: your idea is good. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree too.--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input → ✓ Done --El Grafo (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

VI criteria for images of buildingsEdit

I have been reading the rules that apply to VI scope for buildings. They say you have to have:

A location of more than local interest
Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope
Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope.
Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)

A majority of the VI candidates currently being approved do not appear to meet these criteria, many being of local interest, though I realize the criteria may be out of date or I may not be reading them correctly. Historic buildings in Venice, for instance, are much more likely to be of value than buildings or details of buildings in lesser-known towns. What does everyone think? Are the criteria sensible and, if so, should they be enforced? Charles (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • For who is ignoring a pebble is a pebble, for the savvy pebble can be the Holy Grail. "More than local interest" mean all and nothing to my eyes because a thing can have a very big interest for a person and no for another. In my opinion a scope is relevant when an image is needed for to illustrate it. As the difference of opinion is often a rich, free to those who think some scope are not relevant, to oppose. I saw other people on Commons think this kind of things about the scopes of VI, it's a pity they are not active in the VI project to make their voices heard, their view is all the less important. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with Christian Ferrer. VI is quite special, and sometimes difficult to understand. There is a large place for freedom, and interpretation. A picture of a place, or of a part of a place, listed as national cultural heritage, is for me "more than local interest", but everybody is free to agree or not with a nomination, discussion is open ! It happens sometimes that I oppose because a simple door, for instance, does not seem acceptable to me, even a door of a monument. Let's discuss !--Jebulon (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Charles that "a majority of the VI candidates currently being approved do not appear to meet these criteria", and I think it is an problem. Initially there needed to be a category on Commons or an article in one of the Wikipedia for a scope to be acceptable. That's one of the reason I don't participate much these days. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Charles too. Every candidate page clearly says in strong, red letters Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. [...] Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. So there is clearly not such a large place for freedom and interpretation and discussions, sorry Jebulon. To me it seems after my very negative first (and last) personal experience and some observation since then that the rules and guidelines at VI have gotten clearly out of hand and been replaced by a set of personal routines and undocumented joint inventions. I guess it would be very helpful if people would stick to the written rules much more. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Denis Barthel: The fact that you use twice the word "clearly" is the evidence that no, it is not so clear... I understand the quote "you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion" as an invitation to freedom and interpretation. Anyway, should we "do something"? Of course yes. But as an old regular here, I know that it was several time discussed without solutions. Maybe the use of an image candidate, at least in one other than "Commons" wikimedia project, should be a mandatory before a nomination, and not an option (if the article does not exist, the picture can be used in a gallery or so). Notice that some users here will claim that "Commons" is "not only a depository for wikimedia projects", and will therefore disagree with this kind of proposal. As for me, I promiss that all my future nominations will be in use !--Jebulon (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe the proposal of the criteria "image used" is an alternative to existing criteria, not a replacement. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This issue has already been discussed, and we fail to come to an agreement. The most important point is stated by Yann. A simple rule, which is not put into practice, is the need that the image is used in an article. I propose that this rule is applied which should move us forward in the direction of the quality of this label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This would enlarge the existing criteria, and it may be useful, as it is objective. As for the featured pictures contest on English WP, I think the image should be in an article for at least a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree for the week, I will even say a little more; but, here too, we will quickly identify anomalies.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not against, the idea is good, but the problem is that many articles are simply not available, for many insect species to name a few. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
At least a species is a valid scope. Quite easy to agree on that. The issue might be for subspecies, cultivars, animals behaviour, animals portraits, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
We always come back to the same wall. We can continue that by accepting that there is a proportion of interpretative rules. The rules give us a direction to us to find a balance. Each nomination must be a special case. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's quite a different thing, as you're talking about images while the topic is about scopes.
I don't think requiring an image to be in use is a good idea. 1) As Christian Ferrer pointed out, articles may not exist yet. 2) Quite often articles use inferior images because that's what was available when the article was created and nobody updated it when better images were uploaded. 3) One of the goals of VI is to help people find the best images for their articles, and making this decision based on what is already used may become a circular reasoning.
On the other hand, when it comes to determining whether a scope is worth having, things may be different: If there are Wikipedia articles about a building, this may be a good indication that this building deserves its own scope. I wouldn't make that a requirement though, because of 1) above.
Basically, I think we should do the following:
  • Encourage nominators to make more use of the reason= field to explain why they think that a) their scope is a useful one and b) their image is the best one within that scope.
  • Encourage reviewers to re-read COM:VISC and COM:VICR every once in a while and be a bit more careful about what they promote. Don't be shy, declining a nomination doesn't mean you're a bad person!
  • Encourage reviewers to to double-check other reviews and state their opinion if they disagree. It's nothing personal!
--El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I rather agree and I am not certain that encourage someone to change an image on wikipedia just in purpose to have a promotion (or a seal) will be always a good idea as the candidate is not yet promoted and maybe not the best choice for the article...sometimes maybe but not always. Or it must that this image is since long time in the article, rather a month than one week. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New nominationsEdit

Hello, new nominations are no longer displayed. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Bot" does not work you have to wait ... I point the problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Mmmh, the bot did a run on the 23rd but not on the 24rd. Not sure if it stopped working again or if is just didn't have anything to extract yesterday – I guess we'll have to keep an exe on this.
For explanation: When the bot stops working, finished nominations are not removed from the page any more. Since the number of nominations that can be displayed is limited by {{VICs}}, when the limit is reached new nominations are not displayed until some old ones are removed. Since this has been happening before, I've raised the limit from 120 to 160 nominations yesterday, hoping that this'll help a bit. --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention is already a lot.I've always wondered if the Bot starts automatically or when activated manually?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, the bot runs automatically, but sometimes it gets stuck and has to be restarted manually. --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
FTR: Bot's working again] … --El Grafo (talk)

New (animated).gif Template:Valued images of insectsEdit

I am pleased to announce the creation of this template who placed at the head of the categories on valued images of insects by order, allow to cycles through these. Exemple : Category:Valued images of Hemiptera. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Je t'en félicite bien vivement, et souhaite tout aussi ardemment que tu en remplisse les colonnes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Overly specific sub-scopes (am I out of line?)Edit

Dear all,

over the last few months, I have observed an increase of what I perceived as "overly specific/narrow sub-scopes". It has always been my impression that (apart from the rewarding feeling for the successful author) the main goal of VI is to provide Wiki authors with a selection of those images that are best suited to be used in an article on a given topic (scope). That didn't always work as well as intended because VI were hard to find, but FastCCI and the "Good pictures" button on category pages are making that pretty easy now. With a simple click you can get a list of FP, QI and VI in a category. Depending on the size of the category, the list of QI can be enormous and thus pretty useless for finding the best image quickly. And that's where VI is the more important project, as filtering for VIs only gives you just a handful of the most useful images. Or at least is should. The problem I see with having too many and overly specific sub-scopes is, that this key feature of VI might get lost. Suppose we have a Category that contains about 20 images of a subject. They are all a little bit different and we might be able to construct a sub-scope for most of them. Then the "Good pictures" tool would return a list of maybe 15 images, which doesn't really help anyone bringing down the Category content to the one or two images best suited for an article.

On the last few days, I have made some comments on nominations where I thought the (sub-) scope was too narrow to be useful. Doing that, I must have stepped on some toes, as my edits were perceived as disruptive by at least one nominator. I am deeply sorry for that, it was the last thing I intended. I must have something wrong, but I'm not sure if it was because my perception of what makes a good scope is out of line or because I failed to communicate that in an appropriate way. So here are some thoughts on this topic:

  • I makes sense to me to have different sub-scopes for north, west, etc. views of a building. However, it does not make sense to me to have different sub-scopes for details like entrance portals, single windows, doorknobs etc. unless they really are of general interest.
  • The same goes for interiors: For a Christian church for example (assuming it is OK per the "not every church …" rule), it totally makes sense to have a VI for the whole interior looking towards the altar (aka. a "Diliff"), plus maybe one in the other direction. It may or may not make sense to have a sub-scope for close-ups of the altar or the organ, if they are something the church is famous for. But in my opinion, it does not make sense to have a separate sub-scope for every little statue of a saint sitting in a corner of that church (again, unless it is really notable for some reason).
  • Utilitarian objects. As we have a lot of great camera pictures coming in at the moment, I'll take them as a example, but I think this applies to most objects: Imho, one front- top- and back-view respectively should be enough. Maybe a bottom or side view. But not 10 different angles with 10 different lenses attached to the body, each with and without lens cap (I'm exaggerating here, of course).
  • Last but not least, I think before going into sub-scopes we should make sure that a main scope VI is already picked and that the sub-scope adds something to it. There's really no need to add a "front view" to a scope when all the other sides of an object are utterly uninteresting.
  • Of course, exceptions may apply for any of these points!

I'd very much like to hear your opinions on this. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I can agree, and it´s my fault too, that we have this discussion right now. Thanks for this oversight! --Hubertl 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your recent actions and especially for the discussions that result. The problem is that the good image search tool in its current state is too coarse. We should be able to set the research that is finer.
For your general thoughts they are common sense, and I am all doing okay.
A good scope well described should prevent problems and allow for expansion of the label image VI. But this good initial idea may turn against us with generating too many "pieces" of scopes.
I return to the proposal made earlier: for an image is what VI must be useful and used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I copy my extract from the VI scope criteria:
A location of more than local interest
Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope
Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope.
Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)
Many images of buildings currently being approved do not meet these criteria. Charles (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The first 3 points are not really relevant for this discussion – which is my fault, I should have been more clear: I was talking about sub-scopes only. I've always called them like that in my head and forgot they are called "additional scopes" in the buildings section the guidelines (but they're called "sub-scopes" in the animals section). In this whole section, I'm assuming that the subject itself is worth its own (main) scope because it's of more than local interest etc. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am broadly in agreement with El Grafo. Following on his example of a Christian Church, I agree that the porch of a redundant British Grade II listed church is probably too narrow a scope for a VI, unless some compelling reason can be put forward for it to be a VI. However, if the same porch were to be proposed the best image in the scope "Porch of a British Medieval Church" then there is no reason why it should not be put forward as an example of that style of architecture. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the last part: If that portal (or whatever) is representative for a typical architectural element of a specific style (say, en:Gothic art), it's totally fine to use that as a scope. It would probably be wise to use the reason= parameter of the nomination template to explain why this specific picture of this specific portal is the best we have for this specific scope, to make the decision easier (I'm not a specialist in medieval architecture, and I suppose that's true for most of our reviewers). In any case, it wouldn't be a sub-scope of the main scope for that specific church any more, so this case is kind of beyond the scope ;-) of this discussion, but thanks for bringing it up – that part obviously needed clarification. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've started a spin-off discussion for animal sub-scopes here. I think that section of the rules needs a little bit of clean-up, so please feel invited to comment there as well. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination terminated after 19 hours scope change?Edit

Hello Palauenc05 why did you terminated nomination after 19 hours scope change. Please be undone, thank you. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Archaeodontosaurus, can you help? Thanks. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Nobody err. You have the place the picture under discussion which will give you more time. But do not worry. you can put this image in the competition with the new scope for a new vote, you've every right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most Valued Image reviewing rulesEdit

Commons:Valued image candidates/Review procedure tells us:

"Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it)."

How does this work for Most Valued Image (MVI) reviews?

  1. Can the creator of a new MVI review group vote for candidates that he did not nominate but which he did move to the MVI review group?
  2. Can the creator of a new MVI review group vote for candidates that he has nominated and added to the MVI review group?
  3. Can the nominator of a candidate moved to an MVI review group not created by him vote for the candidate he nominated?
  4. Can the nominator of a candidate moved to an MVI review group not created by him vote for one of the other candidates he did not nominate?

Please advise. DeFacto (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question.
  1. I'd say yes, because moving stuff to MVR is just an administrative task – unless s/he has nominated a counter-candidate (see 4).
  2. I'd say no – the you can't vote for what you've nominated rule should of course apply to MVR as well. Unless we're talking about re-opening the old discussion of an existing VI nominated by somebody else that has been challenged – that's again a purely administrative thing (a service for the nominator of the counter-candidate who probably just didn't check if there's already an existing VI).
  3. I'd say no – the you can't vote for what you've nominated rule should of course apply to MVR as well.
  4. I'd say no, as a vote against another candidate can have the same effect as a vote for your own candidate.
So, I'm tending to treat a MVR as a single entity with the same rules that apply to a normal nomination: If you've nominated, you can't vote. --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: I agree with you, and that is exactly how I imagined it should be, in spirit if not in precise letter anyway. However, the creator of the "Inveraray Castle south-west fascade" MVI review, who added four new nominations of his own against a pre-existing nomination of mine (which he had moved from the general VI review), then went on to record an oppose vote against my nomination, giving his four nominations a +1 advantage. No-one objected or queried that though, so I thought my idea of fair-play was, perhaps, incorrect. DeFacto (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Well, to be honest (and in Martin's defense): This is what I came up with after actually thinking about it for a while. Had I been the one nominating the counter-candidates, I might actually have voted as well, as it's not that obvious (and the rules don't explicitly mention MVR). I think that was most likely just an honest mistake anyone could have made. @Martinvl: maybe you'd like to take back that vote? It doesn't look as if that would really change the outcome anyway at the moment. --El Grafo (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have already done that (see below). I think that our messages "crossed in the post". Martinvl (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I must appolgise for mis-reading the rules. I have now rectified the situation. It should however be noted that moving an image from the VIC list to the MVR list negates existing votes, so my "oppose" negated the exiting "support" vote. Martinvl (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Martinvl: thanks for addressing that. DeFacto (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Are you referring to the sentence "However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR" in Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review? I think you have to read that in context with the preceding sentence: as far as I understand it, that only applies to old nominations of existing VIs that have been re-opened because someone has found a better one and nominated it to replace the old one. Will comment on your proposal below later, I'm too tired atm. --El Grafo (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On reading DeFacto's questions and also looking at the other responses, may I suggest that in future the voting at a MVR should be as follows (this might need some discussion):

  • Everybody (including the nominator) is entitled to one "support" vote attached to any one image.
  • Nobody may "oppose" a single image, but they may however oppose the scope of the MVR, following the same rules as for a VIC or they may "oppose" all the images on grounds that none of them are suitable.
  • The votes are then processed as follows:
  • The number of support votes for all images are counted and one vote is deducted (to account for the nominators being allowed to vote).
  • The number of "oppose" votes are counted up.
  • The rules for VIC vote-counting then apply except that at this stage a second count of votes is needed to identify which image is promoted.
  • The image with the most "support" votes is promoted.
  • If two or more images have the same number of votes, then there is a run-off vote between those candidates.
  • If the number of votes is still the same, voting is reopened and remains open until somebody changes their mind.

Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

    • I've read this very carefuly, it is very interesting. In my opinion, there is no reason for changing the current rules.--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

VI with disputed taxonomyEdit

probably not Cottus gobio

The file on the right is the current VI in the scope Cottus gobio. It is currently under discussion at the german village pump. Short summary: At the uploader's Flickr stream, the same image is described as showing Cottus rhenanus, same thing here, and according to Kai.pedia the author has confirmed that Cottus rhenanus is correct. The folks over at the VP are currently considering having an uninvolved expert having a look at this as well. I suppose we can wait until they've sorted it all out before we take any action regarding VI status, just thought I'd mention it here before I forget about it … --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

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