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.


Hi there,

Checking my own pictures, I realize that we have a "duplicate" of VI, for the same place and for the same scope.

See and compare: this and that

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)
  • The utility supposed to give the labeled image, running bad for VI. I do not have it seen, in January. It must go through MRV. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

VICbot failed 06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Edit

Usually VICbot performs 4 steps each time it runs:

  1. Prepares a new random sample of four valued images
  2. Extracts all processed nominations from Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list
  3. Tags all promoted Valued Images
  4. Notifies users of all promoted Valued Images

On this [06:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)] occasion it completed steps 1 and 2 but only processed 2 of the 10 promoted images for step 3 and did not perform step 4 at all.

The result is 8 promoted but untagged images and no notifications sent to users. Any ideas for how to get this fixed? DeFacto (talk). 17:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Failure Bot: I reported the problem this morning. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Archaeodontosaurus. DeFacto (talk). 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg is write-protected and that it is derailing the Bot. I'll close the promotional manually in the day. Bot walk again. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I've switched to semi-protection on that file if it helps. INeverCry 21:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Perfect problems are solved. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Rules on scopeEdit

I'm not sure I like the new idea of linking to gallery not category. I propose that we only allow category. Care must be taken so that scope does not link to a sub-category that is too closely defined, as otherwise competing images can be missed. i.e. for an animal, the category used in a a scope should always be the binomial name, not the subspecies.
When uploaded, all images go automatically into one or more categories, but users have to take the trouble to post an image to a gallery. As you know, I haven't been doing this with my wildlife images. For some VI candidates, the gallery only has only the nominated image, so could logically be supported, but the category may have other images which might be superior. I doubt all of those who support images will take the trouble to check the category. Inexperienced voters may not even know that there are galleries and categories.
What does everyone think? I understand that this suggestion requires the amendment of the rules. Charles (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • We must have the freedom to link the scope to one category or a gallery. Everyone must choose its scope. There are already many rules ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    @Archaeodontosaurus: I think it unnecessary, in the gallery are often random images that are not the best. In my opinion, should be to linked to the category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand what you mean and I agree with your analysis. But it is for us to work to make good galleries. We should not change the rules to make our life easier. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  Neutral I have not enough background on this subject to have an useful opinion. However, I feel me too that categories are a more robust way to, well, categorize images, and are therefore more appropriate for VI scope. Is there any example of a scope better including a gallery than a category? On a side note, the FastCCI tool only works in categories, not galleries. --Mathieu MD (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that linking to a gallery is a new idea - it seems to have been an option in Commons:Valued image scope for years - but I haven't seen it used much while I've been participating here. I'd like to know from their supporters what the perceived advantage of using galleries over using categories is, why/when would you choose to use them instead of categories? DeFacto (talk). 18:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • De Facto is right, nothing new. I agree with Archaeo, no need of rules. Case by case, reviewers may ask for a better scope, if the scope is not accurate (a too "weak" gallery, for instance). If the nominator disagree, then, oppose.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment We are all aware of the usefulness of the labels that distinguish some images. But there are more than 33 million images on COMMONS and if you will look in the daily flow of images you will be horrified by the quality and the lack of interest in what happens to us. Categories are our first line of defense, but the system explodes with the need to create more and more category. There is a place which is the bulwark of excellence are the galleries. In this space we can choose the best images with the display of their label, and organize them into giving meaning to COMMONS that should not be a place of storage. These galleries are not very used by us so what are highly visited from the outside. They are imperfect, but they are the natural receptacle of our Approved images. If you do not use them, you demean your work. The real issue is the future of our labeled images, Labelled a picture which is not used is lost. Our job VI can continue with the galleries. If some do not have the time to do this is understandable, but want to change the rules to not have to click once again is a profound nonsense. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment, thanks for the lucid explanation Archaeo, you have convinced me of the worth (and currently wasted potential) of galleries. That, combined with Jebulon's observation that reviewers can oppose nominations if the scope links to a weak gallery, I am persuaded that we should keep the option of using galleries. DeFacto (talk). 06:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, Archaeodontosaurus explanations makes sense! Thanks. --Mathieu MD (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Archaeo is wise, but this not new !--Jebulon (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Scope match in WikidataEdit

Hi, I propose that a scope should have an entry in Wikidata. That would not reduce much what we are currently doing, but it would impartially prevent fantasy scopes, which we get time to time. A Commons category or a gallery can have quasi automatically a Wikidata entry. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

  •   Strong oppose The Commons category, combined with global usage of the VIC (which can easily be seen by simply viewing the image and looking at the usage), works fine for identifying valued images, and has for many years now. No need to change a system that works well, as VIC does, to prevent some rare and very minor "fantasy scope" issue. Don't fix what isn't broken. Keep Wikidata's clumsy hands off of VI. lNeverCry 03:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are already struggling to attract new contributors. This measure would destroy VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I think we should encourage, not deter (which I think this proposal would do), nominations from the broadest selection of users and for the widest and most diverse possible array of useful scopes. DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion in scope for all content creatorsEdit

I started a discussion here which is meant for all content creators who are less active in admin boards. Feel free to express your opinion there to avoid broken discussion here and there. Thanks for your cooperation. Jee 06:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

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