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.

Valued images and thumbnail sizeEdit

In this thread, a side discussion of thumbnail size is taking place. I'm sure Colin wouldn't mind if I quote him:

"On Wikipedia, my thumbnail size is 300px, which is rendered on my high DPI screen using a 600px image, which that image (at 506px wide) is not large enough to do. High DPI screens are becoming more and more popular both on the desktop and mobile devices, so our old concept of 'thumbnail' size is obsolete."

If "thumbnail size" is already obsolete, how should we be judging value, or should we even continue with the Valued Images project and designation? Should we simply be looking for the clearest file with the highest resolution (especially FPs and QIs) and totally ignoring how photos look as thumbnails? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Thumbnails are generated automatically. The problem can be discussed but not in VI. An image can not be judged on a thumbnail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
How do you judge which image is most useful, keeping in mind that when people read Wikipedia articles, they generally aren't seeing the file at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section Preferences you go to appearance and you can set the display to a thumbnail of 400px by default. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not very familiar with the VI critiera. I assume you are referring to "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). " I'm a bit puzzled by this since the VIC template code is set to "portrait=120|panorama=277|160" and so produces really tiny thumbs on the candidate page. These are much much smaller than the 480x360 size mentioned in the criteria. If Ikan you have only been looking at these tiny 120px portrait thumbs when judging for quality, then that doesn't sound like you are judging at the right size, which would be 3x larger at least. Archaeodontosaurus, it doesn't appear that the preferences affect the the thumbnail size for VI candidates, as the values are hard-coded. Should the candidate page be revised to use larger thumbs? I would suggest it does. I also note that this critiera is merely a minimum quality threshold and the "valued image" still requires it to be the best image on Commons for the subject, which will almost certainly require looking at it in a larger size when comparing to others. Also, Ikan, you seem to be judging VI based on how the image looks on Wikipedia articles in a standard thumb. I would suggest that that is a narrow view of VI, which is not a Wikipedia project. My guess is that the minimum size threshold has been arived at what would be suitable for general online use (which includes wikipedia, blogs, newspapers, etc) rather than high-quality printing such as for books and magazines.
I understand that my Wikipedia thumbnail defaults (300px) are higher than the default which is 220px [my Commons thumbnail is 400px but that is often quite large for Wikipedia articles], though using a high DPI screen doubles all those values. The MediaWiki software is among the best at handling a high DPI screen but is not alone in considering this when deciding what sized image to use when rendering a page. Generally a high DPI screen requires 1.5 or 2x the image size to render the page layout the same as for a standard DPI screen.
The fact that the criteria size is called "a standard 4:3 landscape image" suggests these requirements were defined many moons ago when that was what compact cameras produced and TVs were shaped. Perhaps a 600x400 / 400x600 size would be more appopriate for now and immediate future? -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually look at all VI candidates at full screen on my laptop as well as thumbnail size, but I do try to keep in mind what they're likely to look like on a Wikipedia page. But if I judged all candidates by how they look at full screen, then smaller files would inevitably be at a much greater disadvantage than they are now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring for a moment that a higher resolution file may not actually have more detail than a somewhat smaller one (due to softness, noise, etc) then surely when comparing to see if a candidate is the best on Commons for that topic, then the smaller file is rightly at a disadvantage. It has less detail so has less educational information. However, other aspects such as lighting, position, crop, etc, may be positives for a smaller image where one decides it is the better image. I don't think you should compare two images at thumbnail size. The requirement is only that it "looks good at review size 480x360" to judge whether it is acceptable at all.
Ping User:Slaunger wrt to the issue where the candidate list has tiny thumbs. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image) refers to the review page of a single nomination, not the smaller images on the candidate list. Each candidate has a link to the review page on that list right below the image. Template:VIC has {{#switch:{{{orientation|landscape}}}|portrait=360|panorama=830|480}}, so it defaults to 480px wide. Template:VIC-thumb has the smaller dimensions you mention above, but it is only used when the review page is included in the candidates list. We might want to clarify that sentence a bit, explixitely referring to the review page and the candidates list …
I'm not opposed to increasing the default review size a bit, as long as it stays reasonable. For reference, it seems you need about 1200 × 1800 px (= 2.16 Mpx) to make a classic standard 4×6-inch-sized print at 300 DPI [1]. That should be sufficient for most educational on- and offline needs (OK, you'll need an inch more in width if you'd want to use it as a double-column image in Nature: [2]). That would probably not fit into the review page on smaller devices, though. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks El Grafo for the clarification. Glad that the thumbs on the candidate page are not regarded as the "review size" thumbs. Perhaps the sizes could be increased a little to 400 for portrait width, 600 for landscape width and 900 for panorama width. I think I'm happy with VI's online-usage emphasis (if I'm reading this correctly) since pixel-peeping high-resolution photos seems to cause QI to reject many perfectly good and usable images. As long as VI is selecting the best we have on Commons, at a size that is at least usable online, then anything more (such as great quality for print) is a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Colin, Ikan Kekek, El Grafo: You are indeed supposed to review a VIC at nomination file page resolution, not in the overview thumbnail size, nor at full resolution. The idea being that typically in a wikipedia project article for online use the mage would not be larger than stated in the current guideline. The idea also being that if you have, e.g., a mobile phone camera which typically has a lot of pixel-noise and an excessively large pixel resolution, it would be OK at the review size as due to the downsampling the noise would be suppressed a lot giving an acceptable quality assuming other aspects of the photographs (lightning, sharpness, illustrates subject well) were OK. That said, the current review size was established 9 years ago, and I would support stepping up the review size moderately to follow the normal progression in image resolutions. The dimensions Colin proposes are pretty good, although I think 480 pixel width for portraits, 640 pixel width for landscape and 1000 pixel width for panorama would be more suitable. It corresponds roughly from going from HVGA (320x480, 0.15 Mpixel) to VGA (480x640, 0.3 Mpixel) review resolution. We could also step up further to an SVGA (600x800, 0.5 Mpixel). This progression of review resolution roughly corresponds to how resolution has evolved naturally on displays over a time span of the VI project. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, I've been looking at the thumbnail size on the file page, not the VIC page, and then I have also been looking at the full-page image on my laptop. I sometimes look at full size, but mostly if I'm considering whether the photo should be nominated at QIC or FPC or if it's simply enjoyable or interesting enough for me to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: Ok, you are of course free to look at at image at any size you want, but for the purpose of a reviewing an image for VI, you are supposed to follow the "Review it!" link on the thumbnial overview page as this will guide you to the VIC nomination subpage for the VIC under review, where it is displayed in the review resolution for VI. It is in this review resolution that it shall illustrate the scope better than any other image and comply with the other VI criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd been using the file page's thumbnail, not the "Review it!" link. Now that I've changed the thumbnail default size to 400px, the file page thumbnail size is sometimes a lot bigger than the "Review it!" thumbnail size, which doesn't seem to be responding to my change in preferences for default thumbnail size. So I think it's probably best for me to continue reviewing from the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing pageEdit

Why is there no Commons:Valued image candidates/Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg page? I want to oppose the nomination and make the point that of the 3 photos from that view, File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg, which is bigger than the nominated File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 42.jpg and in better light than File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo. Gebouw bij centrale Malga Mare 01.jpg, would appear to be best in scope. However, I really don't understand the scope, because what does "Business surface" mean? The most useful view of this side of the building, though viewed from a different angle, is actually File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 45.jpg, so I would consider that that picture should be the VI, although the scope needs to be restated in clear English. But how do I actually vote and put this in the review, when the review page is a red link? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I took a look at this and see that the problem is that the candidate page was created for "File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 43.jpg", but after creation was internally modified by another editor to point to the ...42.jpg file (in this edit) without renaming the candidate page to match, and so was corrupted. So the link is red because it's looking for a *42 candidate page, which doesn't exist. DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DeFacto. So what's the solution? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: there is a choice of two possibilities as I see it. 1) change it all back, 2) rename the candidate page to match the contents. We possibly need input from the nominator to know what they want to do and of the second editor to know why the change was made. DeFacto (talk). 19:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Agnes, any input? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I have corrected the description of the image. Martinvl (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

VIs of age-dependent imagesEdit

@Olivier LPB: @Ikan Kekek: @Archaeodontosaurus: @Smihael: @Palauenc05: @Berthold Werner: @Moheen Reeyad: @Jacek Halicki: @Famberhorst: @PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ: @Lucasbosch: @Llez: @Jebulon: @Moroder: @DeFacto: @Halavar: @JLPC: @Lucas.Belo: @Yann: @FredD: @Palauenc05: @Carschten: @Masum-al-hasan: @Slaunger: @Martin Falbisoner: @Smihael:

How should we define scopes of age-related images? Animals are quite simple. Adult is the default and is not mentioned - we have immature, juvenile, baby and I had one Equus quagga burchellii (Burchell's zebra) male, one day old. But what about things that decay - especially people. There are a lot of VIs being promoted of people. In many cases these local politicians who are 'notable' only for a short time, but what about Winston Churchill, Mick Jagger, Shirley Temple or HM The Queen? There could hundreds for each. Don't we need some better guidelines: both on who is 'entitled' to a VI and how many each should have? Charles (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think there should be more than 2 or 3 VI for any single person. Usually one for young age, one for mature age, 3 different periods in special cases. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Yann's got it. But no hard and fast rule, because in some cases, it could be valuable to show actors playing a dozen roles or more in different costumes and makeup (but that's not quite the same as age-defined differences in scope). I don't know, I think no standardization is necessary. What I would propose is simply that each scope defined by age be recognizably different from the others. I think juvenile monkeys are quite recognizably different from infant monkeys, but I don't think that we should normally have a different scope for a 12-month-old human baby and a 13-month-old human baby. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If the scopes of different ages are 'visually distinct' they are acceptable. Visually distinct is somewhat fuzzy I know, but I think it is quite line with the statements of Yann and Ikan Kekek above. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there should be a numerical limit, but that the criterion should be that they are visually distinct. So a bearded/unbearded portrait or various ages or various states of decay, or whatever - just so long as there is a potential use and an agreed (per the vote) visual difference. DeFacto (talk). 12:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that each image should bring its peculiarities that differentiate it from the others, and the age can be a differential in an image. But standardizing the number of images already awarded can be harmful if a new image has many attributes. Good judgment in this case should be considered, avoiding the loss of an image of value and the exaggeration in the number of winning images of the same person with the same hetary range. I believe that this posture is relevant to the notoriety of images with value and good scopes. -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Still no one is commenting on the question of notability. Charles (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

When the person is notable enough to have (or could have) a Wikipedia article, then a (good) portrait of this person is be valuable for Commons as it can be used in the accompanying article given that other VI criteria are met. The picture does not necessarily have to portray the person as we might remember him/her – often it is the case, that pictures of famous persons in their youth are also interesting. --Miha (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Valued image set candidatesEdit

Any word on the return of Valued image sets? Philip Terry Graham (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Determining scope on multiple images of individual personsEdit

After the failed nom on one image of Donald Tusk and on images of Neil Patrick Harris, maybe I need help on determining an appropriate scope on bio pictures before re-nominating them. If helping on individual nominations is ineffective, how do we handle images that belong in similar categories? --George Ho (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, In the case of Neil Patrick Harris, I think it is very silly to move all images into subcategories. It makes choosing an image for an article (and for VI) very difficult. In the case of Donald Tusk, the best solution is to create a category Category:Portraits of Donald Tusk, and copy all portraits there. Then a candidate can be chosen among them. See an example of a VI for a person with many potential candidates. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Created Category:Portrait photographs of Donald Tusk. I'll re-nominate this soon. Thanks for the advice. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Withholding a vote of a photo you believe should be a VIEdit

Can everyone please respect the consensus that currently being used outside of Commons is not a criterion for whether a photo should be promoted to Valued Image? If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper. Can we all please stop doing that? This kind of behavior corrodes the project and the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And so as not to have an oblique and theoretical discussion, have a look at User talk:Ikan Kekek#Please explain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that adding rules that don't exist merely results in exactly what Ikan Kekek just said. This is true in VI, Commons, any other wiki project, our real life paying jobs, real life organizations we belong to, etc. I would also like to say that I truly appreciate all the people who've been helping me learn the ins and outs of VI; they know who they are as I've thanked them before. But on this one issue we should be more "in the same boat". PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
We must have the right to vote in compliance with the rules we have all agreed to. Voting should not be mandatory, we are not robots who record appointments. I maintain that I do not wish to vote for unused images, has a personal choice that only conspects me. I have also chosen not to intervene on subjects that I do not know. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree completely with Archaeodontosaurus. I also try not to get involved with images of subjects I have no expertise in, which includes those of plants and insects. As individuals too, we all have our own personal preferences and dislikes, and points of view as to what "the most valuable illustration" must be, or must not be. There is no rule broken in deciding, based on personal criteria, not to support an image nomination, or even in deciding to oppose one. DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
You guys are intent on enforcing through the back door a proposed rule that was shot down by consensus? This isn't about likes or dislikes in terms of the picture itself. This is a case in which you believe the picture is best in scope and deserves to be a VI, but you refuse to vote for it for extraneous reasons that are specifically excluded by consensus as criteria. It's specifically and pointedly an attempt to sabotage the Wiki guideline of respecting and operating in good faith as part of a consensus, even if you disagree with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ikan is spot on here. PumpkinSky talk 09:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: no, I do not support usage being a mandated VI requirement, and was happy that rule proposal was rejected. However, what I do support is the right of an editor to decide for themselves whether they consider an image to be "the most valuable illustration" within the given scope - which is a very subjective decision anyway - and whether they will support it. And it is quite reasonable to expect a rationale for an 'oppose' vote, but I'm not sure we should be demanding a justification for not giving a 'support' vote. DeFacto (talk). 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. It's not likely to be possible to force anyone to vote for a photo they believe deserves to be a VI, but do you really disagree that good faith demands that people take it upon themselves to do so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
They are free to do so if they want, as I am free to vote or not. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but with all due respect to all of the really helpful things you do, you are acting in bad faith in these kinds of situations, and it is unhelpful to the project and to sustaining the Wiki spirit of moving forward by consensus. In effect, you are being passive-aggressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
We agree that we must rely on consensus. I do not think that imposing a vote, mandatory and positive, is a consensual idea.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that anyone be forced to vote. I'm suggesting that by withholding your vote for a photo you believe should be a VI, you are operating in bad faith, and that anyone who thinks a photo should be a VI, as a matter of integrity and Wiki spirit, needs to take it upon themselves to vote for that photo without extraneous reservations based on a proposed new policy that was shot down. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion that comes from Surrealism. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Do you truly not understand my point? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This suggestion is a very interesting intellectual construction that can make us discuss for hours, I am very admiring the surreal movement, but there is no psosibility that there can be an action in reality. You can not get into people's minds and their vote remains free. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, people remain free to act in what I consider bad faith, according to their conscience. I don't understand why you're focusing on that, rather than the substance of what I brought up at the very beginning of this thread, which is not "people should be made by force to vote for x, y and z" but "If you think a photo is of adequate quality, well categorized and best in scope, withholding your vote is improper." The onus falls on every individual to act within the spirit as well as the letter of the consensus and not deliberately undermine it by behaving as if your losing position is an additional unwritten rule. I think it's quite unfortunate that no-one else but PumpkinSky agrees with me. -- 02:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My position has a meaning, that is the point that you did not address. I try to encourage photographers to get involved in the content of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is the purpose of our work. The vast majority of images we have in COMMONS is useless, hence the label; But it is not the label that will make "live" the image is its use that will do it. If you believe in the usefulness of your images, then submit to the reality of placement of the image in the encyclopedias. If it "survives": it has an effective utility. It is better an actual and proven reality than a reality that is supposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list".