Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list< Commons talk:Valued image candidates
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10|
I'd like to work a lot more in the near future with night photography and nominate my picture as Valued image candidates. Now on this nominee a comment by @Charlesjsharp: was "I don't think we want scopes with 'night view', unless it's an illuminated building". I'd be very interested what is other's opinion about scopes with night view--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I wonder if anyone knows how to fix a problem I have with VICBot.
This image of mine was promoted as a VI on 3 April 2016. However, since 06:29 on 19 April, VICBot has been re-promoting it twice a day. I reverted it the first couple of times, but I'd rather stop it from doing that altogether. Does anyone have any ideas? DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bot noticed that you were very deserving! More seriously; there are small bugs that you can manually correct usually I do but there are mistakes I can not see. It is possible that there in your case hidden characters that you introduced without seeing them in the appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Archaeodontosaurus, where would the errors typically be do you think - in the candidate wrapper file, or somewhere else? DeFacto (talk). 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I never identified.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's stopped doing it now. The only clue I have is that it started after I nominated two more candidate files whose names happened to contain the name of the troublesome image and only stopped after they were promoted. DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- And started doing it again when I nominated two other images which contained its name! DeFacto (talk). 20:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to no-index candidate discussions at FPCEdit
I have added a proposal to no-index the discussions at FPC, that would also logically make sense to extend to VIC. The reasons for this and discussion is at: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Proposal to no-index featured picture discussions from search engines. KaisaL (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Checking my own pictures, I realize that we have a "duplicate" of VI, for the same place and for the same scope.
Of course, mine is better , but my opinion is not enough. I did not notice an existing VI when I nominated, but I think we should eliminate one of them. If there is a consensus, what and how should we do ? I suggest a MVR as appropriate, but as I'm involved, therefore I think somebody else should start the process, and I would not vote. Thanks for help.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, the scope should be the same. I think you can totally start an MVR yourself, as long as you don't vote. But I'm new around here... --Mathieu MD (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)