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.


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)

Heads-up regarding Commons:CropToolEdit

Hi VI contributors,

I have noticed an issue with the use of Commons:CropTool for assisting a user in generating a cropped version from another file. If the tool is used on a VI, the {{VI}} template is automatically copied over to the derived version, which is then incorrectly tagged as VI as well within the same scope. I have described the problem here. Of course this problem should be handled by the tool or the users using the tool, but in a quick search I have found that there are apparently more than 100 images that have been incorrectly tagged as VIs in this process. Therefore, if you have noticed in your watchlist that a cropped version of one of your VIs has been created using this tool, it may be a good idea to go have a look at the derived version, and check that it has not incorrectly been tagged as VI as well, and if so, fix the problem by removing the template. I have also noticed cases where user categories such as "Valued images by User:XXX" have been mindlessly copied over or "Valued images of XXX". Check that as well. And {{LargeImage}}, and... I The problem also affects QIs and FPs. -- Slaunger (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Affected FPs fixed manually. -- Slaunger (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your vigilance. I did not know CropTool. It's a bad tool. Complicated, and which generates a new image each time. A simple message to the author would suffice. Again we multiply the procedures to the detriment of the dialogue. Croptool should be removed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Archaeodontosaurus, CropTool is a good and useful tool. But it is quite new, and needs some ajustements. It is also good that it generates a new image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Yann It is an effective tool, which has been done for a laudable purpose. But as all the tools it is worth by the use that one makes of it. This use can be dangerous it should be reserved for the administrators. Automatic image creation is not a trivial matter. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Yann, Archaeodontosaurus: I think you both have a point. There are certainly cases where CropTool is helpful, like when you have a pictur of two persons, and you want to make a cropped version and upload as a new file showing just one person for, e.g., a biography. The big problem is that the tutorial for the tool indicates that you are done when you have made the crop, and that there is no need to review the file page of the cropped image. Another problem is that since all users have access to the tool, there is a big risk of errors being made, also because there is no sysmatic review of the cropped file pages. I have written more about it on the tool page. Then, there are some obvious improvements that should be made of the tool to remove the most obvious templates when uploading to a new file page, like checking for the presence of image appraisal templates. But a manual review step should be mandatory. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Archaeodontosaurus:, @Slaunger: I've used crop tool to crop borders and watermarks thousands of times without causing the slightest problem, and I see many other experienced editors using it for the same purposes with no problems. When it comes down to it, the user of the tool has to be careful and responsible. I always double check anything I do using tools here. People have to authorize crop tool before use; perhaps it would be good to have a notice attached warning of the issues Slaunger has discovered.

    I would personally support limiting its use to autopatrolled users, or even creating a usergroup comparable to filemover, which is quite similar. I've tried to get that same limitation for another powerful tool, Flickr2Commons, and all I was able to do was get it limited to autoconfirmed users. Cat-a-lot is another tool that doesn't belong in the hands of inexperienced users. But RFCs for limitation of tool use always meet with a good bit of resistance. Getting programmer/developer attention is no picnic either. In any event, thanks to Slaunger for spotting this issue and getting something of a handle on it for the time being. lNeverCry 21:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We manufacture weapons without worrying about the license to carry weapons. For me Autoparoled is a limit too low. But this discussion shows that we are on the right path. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I wonder if there would be a way to program the crop tool to ignore templates like QI, VI, and FP. That would seem to be a reasonably possible way of dealing with this problem. lNeverCry 08:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
      • INeverCry, of course that is possible, and that is also what I have proposed at the tool talk page. I have proposed that these templates are removed when uploading the cropped file to a new file page, and that overwriting should simply be forbidden if there are such templates. But it only solves some of the problems, there are also many categories of the type "Valued images by User:XXX", "Valued images of XXX", and there are so many variants of these templates that it is non-trivial to let the tool fix those. Thus, tool user awareness of these issues is also needed. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
        • @Slaunger: This reminds me of {{Duplicate}}. If you're an admin, this template gives you an automated process where you can compare the duplicates before deleting and redirecting. Part of this is a screen where you can see both file pages in edit mode in case you want to copy and paste any info/licensing/sourcing/categories, etc. If everything is OK, you then click a processing button which automatically deletes the duplicate and creates a redirect to the duplicated file. This might be good if the crop tool had a step added to it where the file page of the cropped image could be reviewed before uploading and templates and user categories removed by hand. Experienced users of the tool would be able to do this quickly and easily. There could be a notice with an exclamation point/warning sign/stop sign telling new users of the tool to make sure they've removed QI/VI/FP/user categories from the cropped version before completing the upload. I don't know anything about programming, but perhaps someone like Steinsplitter would have an idea of how to set something like this up for the crop tool. Unfortunately we have far too few people who're experienced programmers and template/bot/tool experts like Stein. This might be too time consuming or too technically difficult for all I know. lNeverCry 09:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I uploaded a patch (which is pending tool-owner review) which should solve the problem regarding the templates/cats. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Great work, Steinsplitter! As has been discussed on the tool talk page, the changes have now been incorporated in CropTool :) -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Problem with nominee appearingEdit

I think I nominated this correctly. Did I make a mistake? I don't see it in the list of VICs, though I purged VIC's cache a few times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek. You created the nomination subpage OK (except for the orientation - a minor detail), but you also need to add that to the end of the list of nominations at Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, a silly oversight on my part. Probably from being too tired, so time to lie down again after I input the information. What should I do to the orientation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: I have fixed it. You need to change the orientation parameter, when you create a VIC if it is in any other format than landscape in order to get a reasonable review size at the nomination page and in the list of nominations. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for the fix and the explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Welcome to VIC! Candidate images are whole lot easier to find than over at murderer's row...   lNeverCry 19:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Valued image sets?Edit

Is the issue with valued image sets no longer being nominatable being tracked somewhere? grendel|khan 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

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