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.


Car scopesEdit

@DeFacto: @Archaeodontosaurus:I think we should have a standardized form of scope for cars. I've just had to oppose an image of an Ultima GTR as there are lots of other nice images in the category gallery, probably with different engines etc. I'm no authority, but should we have Manufacturer, Model (engine cc, year, anything else) so my old mini could have been Austin mini (998cc, 1966) or Austin mini (998cc, 1966, with wheel spats). There's also the decision on what to do about pictures showing front/back/sides and if we're not careful, we could have many scopes for each vehicle. Over to the specialists... Charles (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good idea. I support this proposal: Manufacturer, Model, and showing pictures: (front / back / sides). If we agree on at least three, I favor to put in the recommendations. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't claim to be a specialist, but I have owned three Volkswagen Golfs - a MkI, a Mk II and a Mk IV. All my cars were 5-door, but there are also 3-door variants and coupes. I am broadly in favour of regarding the Golf Mk I, Mk II and Mk IV as separate models (they all look different - if I remember correctly, the Mk I was 800 kg and the Mk iV was 1100 kg) but I tend to think that the three door and five door variants should be treated as a single model with preference being given to the 5-door for the second VI if the first VI is a 3-door model. A coupe could be regarded as a separate model in its own right as it looks different. I do not think that engine size should have any bearing unless the cars look different. Also left-hand and right-hand variants should be treated as the same model. In addition, cars that are sold under different names to different markets, but which are otherwise the same (eg the Vauxhall Astra and Opel Kadett) should again be treated as a single model with the scope naming both cars - for example "Vauxhall Astra/Opel Kadett front view". Martinvl (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Good ideas. I think that Vauxhall Astra and Opel Kadett front view might have to be separate scopes, because they look different (badges, grills etc), and the engine/trim option scopes could be limited to rear views i.e. where you can see a difference in the picture. Body styles definitely different scopes for me: coupe/estate, but not sure about 3 door/5 door. I think I agree on LHD/RHD. Charles (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I too support discussing the standardisation of car scopes. I'm no expert in car photo categorisation either, although I do have a casual interest in car history and engineering. I am in general agreement with most of the ideas above to help ensure that we try to avoid having multiple scopes which would contain visually identical vehicles. I think we need to primarily group on Marque (not necessarily the same as "Manufacturer"), Model (including generation or mark number) and Body Variant - and then (but only if they yield visual differences) on Model-Year, Engine Capacity and Trim Level and exceptionally any other visual differentiator. On top of those, we need to probably allow for view angles (front, rear, top, side and three-quarter front and rear (as said above, some views of different marques or models may be identical so we probably need to cover commonise them somehow). DeFacto (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Marque is much better than manufacturer. The test, as we're talking photos, is does it look different, so trim might be more relevant for an interior scope. Also, as with insects, two views give 90%+ of the relevant information and a scope image i.e. a good shot of a car for identification purposes, would normally be three-quarter front and three-quarter rear - that includes side, front and back and who cares about top unless it's a coupe - in which case the three-quarter views should ideally be from a slightly higher elevation than usual to show the interior. Charles (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the threshold should be tell-tale visual differences and that front three-quarter and rear three-quarter should be the standard views. Don't forget trim level may change external appearance significantly too - think of the models where higher trim levels bring body kits, different wheels, more lights, spoilers, etc. DeFacto (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Since we have consensus, can someone edit the guidelines please? @DeFacto: If you update your scopes, I will naturally remove my oppose. Let's then monitor things for a few weeks... Charles (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What is it's scope? View=front three-quarter, Marque="Ultima", Model="GTR". Its year of manufacture is 2005 and its engine is 6200cc, but not being a connoisseur of Ultima vehicles, I don't know whether either of those last two details make it visually unique in any way, or what else is required for this picture! So the best I can offer for scope is: Ultima GTR - front three-quarter view, what else does it need - if anything? Please advise. :) DeFacto (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've started to compose a "cars" section for the guidelines. I'll bring it here for critique when I'm done. DeFacto (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: @Charlesjsharp: @Martinvl: Okay, I have a draft of a car scope section ready below for critique. I followed the examples in Commons:Valued image scope#Domain-specific scope guidelines. Please feel free to criticise and amend.

CarsEdit

  • The general rule is that there will be two scopes per car model - one each for a front three-quarter view and a rear tree-quarter view, in the form:
  1. ''[[marque model]]'' - front three-quarter view, e.g. "Ultima GTR - front three-quarter view" as in this candidate.
  2. ''[[marque model]]'' - rear three-quarter view, e.g. "Ultima GTR - rear three-quarter view" as in this candidate.
  • For car models that have been used for more than one generation of car, generation scopes may be proposed to encompass those. In this case, the main scope should be extended with the common nomenclature for the generation, e.g. "Land Rover Discovery 3 - front three-quarter view", "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front three-quarter view".
  • For visual changes that are introduced during the lifetime of a generation of a car model, model-year scopes may be proposed. The common nomenclature for these should be added to the main scope, e.g. "Peugeot RCZ - front three-quarter view", "Peugeot RCZ facelift - front three-quarter view".
  • For car models that are available in more than one wheelbase and/or body-variant, wheelbase and/or body-variant scopes may be proposed to accommodate them. In this case the main scope should be qualified with the common nomenclature for the wheelbase or variant, e.g. "Land Rover Range Rover 4th generation - long wheelbase - front three-quarter view", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV estate - front three-quarter view", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV hatchback - front three-quarter view". Common body-variant qualifiers are "sedan", "saloon", "estate", "coupe", "hatchback" and "convertible".
  • If marque/model/generation/body-variants are impossible to distinguish visually, then a scope should be generic enough to cover them all, e.g. "Vauxhall Zafira A/Opel Zafira A - rear three-quarter view".
  • If engine differences and/or trim-level differences of the same car model can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then scopes with the engine-cc and/or trim-level appended can be proposed for the same marque/model/body-variant, e.g. "Jaguar F-Type 5.0-litre V8 - rear three-quarter view" (for which this image might be a candidate) and "Jaguar F-Type 3.0-litre V6 - rear three-quarter view" (for which this image might be a candidate).

DeFacto (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This seems sensible - two suggestions:
    • Can we use front in the actual scope as shorthand for front three-quarter view which is clumsy (same for rear). Explain desirable viewpoint in guidelines
    • Rather than facelift or 4th Generation, wouldn't it be easier to give year. The manufacturer's own designation should be used where possible.
    • Might say that where there are competing images for VI (as there nearly always are because people love taking pictures of cars) preference would be for 'ex-factory condition' with no special paintwork, decals, customization etc. Preference will also be given (all else being equal) for images with non-disturbing background, few reflections.

Of course, the best images are nearly always those produced by the manufacturers themselves (or journalists' professional photographers) for publicity, not amateurs taking pictures on the street, but we probably don't get them on Commons. Charles (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments @Charlesjsharp: I agree with them and have incorporated them as best I can into a second draft below.

Cars (second draft)Edit

  • The general rule is that there will be two scopes per car model - one each for a front three-quarter view and a rear three-quarter view, in the form:
  1. ''[[marque model]]'' - front, e.g. "Ultima GTR - front" as in this candidate.
  2. ''[[marque model]]'' - rear, e.g. "Ultima GTR - rear" as in this candidate.
  • For car models that have been used for more than one generation of car, generation scopes may be proposed to encompass those. In this case, the main scope should be extended with the manufacturers designation for the generation, or if none exists, the common nomenclature for it. Use the model-year if possible, e.g. "Land Rover Discovery 3 - front", "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front".
  • For visual changes that are introduced during the lifetime of a generation of a car model, model-year scopes may be proposed. The manufacturers designation should be used if there is one, else the common nomenclature for these should be added to the main scope, e.g. "Peugeot RCZ - front", "Peugeot RCZ 2013 model-year - front".
  • For car models that are available in more than one wheelbase and/or body-variant, wheelbase and/or body-variant scopes may be proposed to accommodate them. In this case the main scope should be qualified with the common nomenclature for the wheelbase or variant, e.g. "Land Rover Range Rover 4th generation - long wheelbase - front", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV estate - front", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV hatchback - front". Common body-variant qualifiers are "sedan", "saloon", "estate", "coupe", "hatchback" and "convertible".
  • If marque/model/generation/body-variants are impossible to distinguish visually, then a scope should be generic enough to cover them all, e.g. "Vauxhall Zafira A/Opel Zafira A - rear".
  • If engine differences and/or trim-level differences of the same car model can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then scopes with the engine-cc and/or trim-level appended can be proposed for the same marque/model/body-variant, e.g. "Jaguar F-Type 5.0-litre V8 - rear" (for which this image might be a candidate) and "Jaguar F-Type 3.0-litre V6 - rear" (for which this image might be a candidate).
  • Note too that the preference will be for images of standard cars (ex-factory condition) with no special paintwork, decals, customisation etc., and also for images with the least distracting backgrounds and reflections.

@Archaeodontosaurus: @Charlesjsharp: @Martinvl: how does this look now? When it's done and agreed here, how do we proceed with the other language versions, and how should we consult them to ensure that everyone is in agreement? We don't want to impose anything without the correct level of community consensus - we saw how Martinvl got caught out on that one. DeFacto (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I am very supportive of this project. For the problem of languages is English, which must refer. Translations are there to help; but they may not be enforceable against the English reference. I propose that we vote as we're used to.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I haven't looked at the details of this too closely yet, but it seems to make sense to me. However, doesn't most of this apply to other kinds of vehicles as well? Why not make this a central guideline for vehicles in general? There may be exceptions for certain kinds of vehicles (for example in flight or landing scopes for aircraft) but we could catch those with a disclaimer like Note: These guidelines were developed mainly with cars/automobiles in mind. While they should be useful for most kinds of other vehicles as well, exceptions can be made where appropriate. What do you think? --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote for Cars (second draft)Edit

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work. Charles (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DeFacto (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose just for the record. Not because I think there is anything wrong with this proposal in particular, but I think it would be better to create a set of rules for vehicles in general. --El Grafo (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with El Grafo. Martinvl (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving forwardEdit

As there seems to be a desire to roll scopes for all vehicle types into one set of rules, I'll be proactive and try to take that initiative forward. Below is a first draft for all Vehicles taken from Cars (second draft) above. Please appraise it and see where we go from here.

Vehicles (first draft)Edit
  • The general rule is that there will be two scopes per vehicle model - one each for a front three-quarter view and a rear three-quarter view, in the form:
  1. ''[[marque model]]'' - front, e.g. "Ultima GTR - front" as in this candidate.
  2. ''[[marque model]]'' - rear, e.g. "Ultima GTR - rear" as in this candidate.
  • For vehicle models that have been used for more than one generation of vehicle, generation scopes may be proposed to encompass those. In this case, the main scope should be extended with the manufacturers designation for the generation, or if none exists, the common nomenclature for it; for example for cars use the model-year if possible, e.g. "Land Rover Discovery 3 - front", "Land Rover Discovery 4 - front".
  • For visual changes that are introduced during the lifetime of a generation of a vehicle model, typicalyy representative scopes may be proposed (for car this may be model-year). The manufacturers designation should be used if there is one, else the common nomenclature for these should be added to the main scope, e.g. "Peugeot RCZ - front", "Peugeot RCZ 2013 model-year - front".
  • For vehicle models that are available in more than one variant (different wheelbases and/or body-variants for example), variant scopes may be proposed to accommodate them. In this case the main scope should be qualified with the common nomenclature for the variant, e.g. "Land Rover Range Rover 4th generation - long wheelbase - front", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV estate - front", "Ford Mondeo Mk IV hatchback - front". Common body-variant qualifiers are "sedan", "saloon", "estate", "coupe", "hatchback" and "convertible".
  • If marque/model/generation/variants are impossible to distinguish visually, then a scope should be generic enough to cover them all, e.g. "Vauxhall Zafira A/Opel Zafira A - rear".
  • If power-source differences (engine type or capacity, for exampe) and/or trim-level differences of the same vehicle model can be distinguished from each other from an image, then scopes with the appropiate designation (engine-cc and/or trim-level, for exampe) appended can be proposed for the same marque/model/variant, e.g. "Jaguar F-Type 5.0-litre V8 - rear" (for which this image might be a candidate) and "Jaguar F-Type 3.0-litre V6 - rear" (for which this image might be a candidate).
  • Note too that the preference will be for images of standard vehicles (ex-factory condition) with no special paintwork, decals, customisation etc., and also for images with the least distracting backgrounds and reflections.

DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Vote on Vehicles (first draft)Edit
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposed. DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment see alternative text below. Martinvl (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative text for VehiclesEdit

Here is an alternative text for vehicles. I believe that this is compatible with DeFacto's text, but is more compact and is aimed at all vehicles, not just motor cars.

Vehicles

  • Vehicles that are designed by a manufacturer prior to orders being received usually have three levels of classification:
  • Manufacturer
  • Model
  • Variant.
A typical examples is the Airbus 340-200. In this case the manufacturer is Airbus, the model is the "Airbus 340" and the variant the "Airbus 340-200". Up to two images of any one variant may be nominated as a VI – allowable views are front, side, back, three-quarters front, three-quarters back, top and bottom. The first VI to be accepted can be any of these views and the second must complement the first. Where a variant itself has sub-variants, for example motor vehicles that are available as either a soft top or a hardtop model, one image should show the soft top sub-variant and the other the hard-top sub-variant.
  • Vehicles that are made to order do not always comply with this classification. In such cases, a set of vehicles might be allocated to a particular type or class – for example a Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer. As in the previous example, there should be a maximum of two images per class or type, even if, as in the case of the British Rail Class 56 diesel locomotives were built by a number of different manufacturers to the same design.
  • If the context of uniqueness of scope, minor variations such as livery, or in the case of motor vehicles, left-hand or right-hand drive are not considered variants.

Martinvl (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Martinvl:, this is too generalist, it doesn't work well for cars. Many car scopes will be exceptions to the 3-level rule. Also manufacturers commonly badge their cars with marques rather than "manufacturer", and may produce more than one marque. Think of General Motors who manufacture, or have manufactured, different ranges of models under numerous marques including: Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Opel and Vauxhall. Marque is definitely more desirable than manufacturer. Also you propose an unrealistic limit on number of scopes per variant, and what you classify as "sub-variants" may include visual differences at both ends, as may engine differences or even trim-level differences, so could not be accommodated under your proposed 2 views per variant limit. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to try to cover all vehicles in one section. DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving images from VI list to MVR listEdit

When an image is moved from the VI submission list to the the MVR list, it is removed from the VI submission list. Unfortunately very few people visit the MVR list. IU would like to suggest a change in procedure - if an image is moved, then it remains in the VI list for 48 hours with a note "This image has been moved to the MVR list. Please make further comments there." People who saw the image in VI will then be reminded that it is still open for comments, but is elsewhere.

For the record, I have moved two images of the Eiffel Tower to MVR, but have deliberately left them in the VI list for the reasons outlined above.Martinvl (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose that idea. I'd prefer a rule prohibiting the inclusion of an image in an MVR whilst it was still an open VI candidate. DeFacto (talk). 22:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I've transcluded the contents of the MVR subpage to the normal candidate list (just like it's done on COM:VIC). That should give them more visibility but might confuse people trying to start a MVR. Please let me know what you think of this. --El Grafo (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories or galleries?Edit

It has, ever since I started nominating images for VI, been accepted that we link to the most relevant Commons category. Essential the 'VI competition' is with all the similar images in the category.

However, the guidelines state that this is the hierarchy:

  • Commons gallery;
  • Commons category;
  • Article on the English Wikipedia;
  • Article on another Wikipedia;
  • Don't link

I suggest the following hierarchy:

  • Commons category;
  • Article on the English Wikipedia;
  • Article on another Wikipedia;

I can see no reason why an image should be in a gallery if it is not in the identical category. I cannot see how any image can be considered 'valuable' to Commons if it cannot pass any of the three options. Of course we have to watch out for nominations in newly-created categories that should really link to existing galleries.

Charles (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand your reasoning, but the initial choice was to promote the galleries. I still think that these are particularly useful items for quick selection of images. I propose simplify by:
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Often the categorys are unusual. We also need the Gallerys. And why not a article in Wikipedia? --Ralf Roleček 13:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
We must commit ourselves in category management, and for the most enthusiastic in those galleries. And this will have to suffice to define a consensual scope. If we want this project to work, you must simplify the rules.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rules are then easier if they offer more options. --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment VIs exist for the benefit of the user so the term "most relevant" should be looked at from the point of view of the user. If the user knows exactly what (s)he wants, (s)he will go striaght to the category where the image is stored. If they are not too sure, then they will go to a "catch-all" category and see what is there. The purpose of the scope, as I see it, is not to index VIs (that is why we have categories), but to filter out images that are less useable. Martinvl (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is a comprehensive gallery displaying a representative range within the scope, then that should be linked
  • Otherwise a category specific to the scope should be linked. If there is no appropriate category then the nominator must provide one to make a valid nomination. DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am confused by these responses as I have always been told by Archaeodontosaurus to link to categories not galleries. When nominating an image, is there a quick way to add to galleries? Charles (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem in VIEdit

We have a problem with User:Medium69, an administrator could give an opinion. These irrational votes disrupt the functioning of VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It must explain how these votes are irrational. You have pointed out to me such as the Puy-de-Dôme was not accurate enough, and actually, many people do not know that it was in France. So I reviewed some of my votes when the scope is not specific enough.
For cons, I find irrational the agreement you have with Charles respectively to vote on your images ...
Finally, only ONE vote does not define the purpose; this is a debate. When oopose me a vote, I'm not crying foul. I puts me in question and try to understand why I had this vote. Everyone should do the same ... --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of Dominican Monastry MVR submissionEdit

@Archaeodontosaurus: I have re-instated the MVR for two images of St Peter and St Paul respectively. This MVR entry was deleted with the statement "not admissable", but no further reason was given. Unilateral deletions such as this should not happen unless there is a good reason (eg vandalism), so please give your reason. Martinvl (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The two images are different, and both are different scopes. Both images have to go through the usual route. Go reread the rules. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@Martinvl: the reason was obvious, and I was going to do the same but Archaeodontosaurus got there first. The images are of different works of art and the scopes were entirely different. MVR is for "at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope". These did not qualify. DeFacto (talk). 16:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
From User:Moheen Reeyad is an awkwardness that is easily excusable because it takes time to understand the workings, and he shows good will. Your Intervention is not excusable. Again you made in bad faith, and an evil spirit. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing much has happened, every beginner has the right to make mistakes. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus:, @DeFacto: Archaeodontosaurus failed on two counts:
  • Unitlateral actions such as his are only justified in cases such as vandalism.
  • I have reread the rules - and in particular :Commons:Valued image scope#Works of art where it says " A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work". This is clearly a case of the nominator asking people to choose between the statue of St Peter and the statue of St Paul as being the most significant work of the artist (in this case scultor) concerned.
Martinvl (talk) 08:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Your incoherent reasoning and your rigid attitude, can only harm you. You play the same pattern that made you exclude wikipedia.en --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Martinvl: the action was in good-faith to correct a mistaken use of MVR. Please don't try to cause a drama over it. DeFacto (talk). 11:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus:. Nowhere does it say that both entries for an MVR must have the same scope, only that they must have "essentially the same scope" (French "essentiellement identiques"). In these images, St. Peter and St. Paul are both apostles, giving these two images "essentially the same scope". In any respect, since there is no consensus regarding the meaning of the rules, you were out of order to remove the MVR request. Please reinstate it. Martinvl (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Why nominating ?Edit

I know it is not a mandatory, but I'd be happy if we had more "reasons for nominating"...--Jebulon (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

How to search for valued images?Edit

Maybe, I'm a bit blind. Neither at the project page nor in the archive of this page I could find a hint. Up to now I couldn't find a way to search for valued images by a given scope or subject. I expected to have an option at the search page or at the advanced search page. Or at a category page a VI could be marked by an Valued images icon. Valued images by scope seems not to be up to date. --Hasenläufer (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Now I got it. I have to switch on “FastCCI” at “Preferences / Gadgets / Improved navigation”. Somehow it was switched off. Good to know, users who are not logged in, have access to FastCCI too. --Hasenläufer (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussions about car VI category namesEdit

There are three discussions ongoing about the names of three of the Valued Image categories related to cars which contributors here might be interested in:

DeFacto (talk). 07:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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