Open main menu

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 4

< Commons talk:Valued image candidates‎ | candidate list
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Valued image set example gallery

I have been working on making

  1. A template {{VISC-to-VIS-gallery}}, for converting a (promoted) valued image set candidate into a Valued image set linked to the main name space category structure.
  2. A template {{VIS-gallery}} for displaying a valued image set in a nice gallery linked to relevant category/categories in the main name space category system.

See Valued image set: Thespis, opera for an example. What do you think? One question to the native English speakers. I have made the convention that the gallery page is named Valued image set:<scope>, that is without an space between the colon and the scope. Is that the right thing to do? Also, some scopes are quite verbose and not suited for being a part of a gallery page title. i have therefore included support for an optional titlescope parameter in {{VISC}} and {{VISC-to-VIS-gallery}}, which can be used to override the default scope parameter in the page title. Promoted VISCs now have a link directly to the VIS gallery, see Commons:Valued image candidates/Thespis for an example.

What is missing now is that the individual images in a promoted set is tagged with a {{VIS}} template, which links to the VIS gallery page and states the set scope, the image is part of. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Normal English convention would be to have at least one space, sometimes two, after a colon. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will add a space character between the colon and the scope. May seem like a little thing, but important to get settled because it is used in templates to construct automated links based on the scope or titlescope parameters. I will also enforce that the first letter after the colon is uppercase. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  Done -- Slaunger (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Valued image set example gallery

Maybe I am uninformed in the current discussions of this. I was thinking that it would be nice if the Valued image galleries could be added to the category they belong to. Perhaps also, in the case of 4 or less images in a set, perhaps they could be added texturally via <gallery/> to the upper portion of the category page. -- carol (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for the ones which are promoted a dedicated gallery page is created and associated with one or more relevant categories, see Category:Valued image sets and its associated " scope" page and promotion subcategories. Having smaller sets added directly to the top is an interesting idea, althoug I am reluctant to treat sets of different sizes differently. What do others think? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I chose "4" because it seems that the style for gallery in the classic skin makes rows of 4 images and the style for monobook makes rows of 5 -- I chose that number because it limited it to one row of images. Just wanted to mention that it was not an arbitrary number.... -- carol (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the galleries I override the default perrow value to 2 and specify a larger image width and height such that the images can be displayed in review size. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Does setting the style at the gallery over-ride personal preferences? -- carol (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unless your screen size makes it imposssible to display the images at the specified size in the gallery. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So there just needs to be a template now? -- carol (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would be one possibility if we wanted to add sets directly in the category pages. Like now we have {{VIS-gallery}} used in the dedicated set gallery pages linked to, from, e.g., Commons:Valued image sets by scope. Another template, say Template:VIS-gallery-thumb could be defined, which, when the gallery page was transcluded onto a category page would display the VIS as for instance a standard gallery enclosed in some fancy VI formatting and colors. Much like the ways valued image set candidates are rendered differently on the review page as compared to the candidates list using {{VISC}} and {{VISC-thumb}}. I have defined a converter template {{VISC-to-VIS-gallery}} for promoted sets. This could be tweaked to do this automatically. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Your templates are beautiful! Whether it is right or wrong, correct or incorrect -- I navigate via the categories here. After going through the tremendous process of isolating the best image here to illustrate a subject, I would not mind seeing them illustrating the categories they eh, illustrate.... I think it was what Linneas was trying to do when he started to select a "Type species" for those things he was working with. I have myself attempted to accomplish this a few times (images in the category descriptions) and I have also seen similar attempts; that we have a review system in place and operating which makes the image selection already -- when can you have the template "tweaked"?!!? -- carol (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well thank you. My example above related to sets, whereas you seem to be speaking of images. The trick there can not so easily be done for images. However, one could make a special template suited for displaying a VI in a category. However, I think that calls for wider community consensus and how about QIs and FPs, should they not be shown consistently as well? One thing I do not like about about adding VIs explicitly to categories is that they would already be in the category, and it would sort of be redundant to have it there twice. That is one of the reasons I like galleries as the last leaf for species (and never understood the crusade for categories as the last leaf), by the way, as here the image can be tagged, with, e.g., {{VI-tiny}}. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all ideas have sets and not all categories have just a single image. The criteria for selecting these images is about what should be the image that appears to represent that category or whatever group of photographs. There were in QI recently several images of a single plant. They can all get the QI thing, but if those same images went through this review then only one of them would be selected -- unless I misunderstand something about what this review produces. And I am not going to argue about one or the other, it is ridiculous since both can exist and serve several different purposes. One image that represents the best of the whole species; I have questions if the type species that was chosen so long ago even does this any longer. I also hardly think that I am qualified to make a selection like this and also, I experienced a "thing" here once where the categories were removed from my images but the image was not included in a gallery and further, they were not the best image available here but deserve to be considered if anyone is looking for images.... -- carol (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You are correct in your interpretation of VI vs QI. They serve different purposes and there can be very many QIs per category or scope. There would normally only be one VI per category unless the category is so broad that it encompasses more than one relevant scope. the solution would be is the mediawiki software was capable of adding a VI/FP/QI tag, like    when the image was shown in a category. Then there would be no need of redundant images in a category in case you wanted to highlight VIs or whatever. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking it would be nice to have a single (or a limited set as this discussion started with) to illustrate some of the categories which should not have images. My mind is on the plants now, but certainly there are other examples of this. -- carol (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
OK to have the plants in mind, are you referring to higher order cats like the genus categories? The best way to solve that to my mind is to have a gallery of the same name, with one image per species. Each image should be the "best" available on commons. If there is a VI for a species, that one should go there. I agree the rest will be more subjective as they would not have undergone review. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I was thinking about it for the species categories. The galleries are an interesting topic and I have not thought so much about what should go into those and what format, etc. The fact that the galleries are made with an incredible variation in style and information -- it is not an area that I will soon have an opinion of. My other experience here was with the rocket images and trying to group them by launch. That gallery is now an article at wikipedia so it was a failure as a commons item/gallery. My goal to subcat the different launches with the thing (probe, satellite, whatever) that was launched is not so different than the species level categorization. The best image of that particular version of rocket (when selected here, if ever) would be used in one of the parent categories -- this is what is on my mind and I am sorry for the wandering that biological organ has made during this discussion. -- carol (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

VICbot already tags images in existing galleries with    if there is a gallery with a name identical to the scope (as wil typically be the case for species scopes). -- Slaunger (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Most valued reviews - lack of activity

It seems like there is almost no activity in the most valued review section. Whenever candidates are moved down there review activity seems to cease. I am wondering why that is so? Is it solely because it is last on the list? Should it be moved to after the ordinary list of VICs (and before the sets) to get more attention? Or would that then lead to less focus on the sets, which already does not receive much attention? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The set nominations were perhaps offputting as they stayed there for so long. Apart from that, I don't know. Lack of activity is self-perpetuating, though. Maybe some regulars could agree to a few edits a week each, which would keep things ticking over and generate more activity on people's watchlists. I'm afraid I haven't been around much myself recently. Will try to do a bit more as it's a shame if this lapses through lack of interest. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you may be right about the staled set nominations, that stayed there for too long. OK VI friends, please remember also the MVRs. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why not try putting the MVRs before the sets for a few weeks to see if that helps? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  Done Let's see what happens... -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Review duration

What is the duration of the review process? When is a decision taken? I could not find any information on that point on the VIC page. Eusebius (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked the wrong place. Eusebius (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations from anonymous users

There is currently a nomination, which has been done by an anonymous user:

Commons:Valued image candidates/Lappenhopf fg01.jpg

We have not stated explicitly in the guidelines (or I can't find it), what kinds of users can nominate, but we have stated explicitly in Commons:Valued image candidates/Review procedure that only registered users can review the candidates. Personally, I do not have any problem in allowing anonymous users to nominate images as long as they do not review images. However, since it is the first time an image has been nominated by an anonymous user, I would like to hear the opinion of other VI regulars. Whatever the opinion is, I think we should add it explicitly to the guidelines avoid any uncertainty about this in the future. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against nominations made by anonymous users, in the principle. Yet, I think it would be better to allow nominations only by logged user (but I'll not fight for it), so that they can have the the review page in their watchlist, answer questions if necessary, and more generally follow the discussion more easily. If such a limitation is decided here, a mention of it should be placed near the nomination input field. --Eusebius (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. We could perhaps recommend nominating as a registered users highlighting the obvious advantages? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No objection per se, but I'm a bit weary about the experience of some IP's when it comes to assessing likely candidates or about other IP's trying to wreck a system hiding in anonymity. Yet I would not forbid anonymous nominations. Lycaon (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Let's leave it as it is for now at least. No systemic problem has been seen yet. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed improved set seals

Proposed Valued image set seals by LadyofHats
Interim logo used for valued image sets so far.

LadyofHats has done it again! Until now we have used an interim logo for the valued image sets.

Comments? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the straight-on ones as they will be clearer when rendered at small size. Perhaps top right is the best? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! These are great! I'm not sure which one I like best yet, but maybe we can use a couple of them like for user awards or something else. Rocket000(talk) 09:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, maybe the quite simple top right version would be good for the sets (and it is also along the same lines as the interim set seal). I like the idea by Rocket to perhaps reserve a couple of version for user awards. Like users, who have nominated and promoted 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000(!) and so on VI/VISs (which reminds me that I could autogenerate (perhaps hidden) nominator specific categories, i.e., Category:Valued_Images_by_Lycaon which could be used to keep track of the numbers). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the ones in the centre of the top row and the one in the exact centre. The one in the top right is kind of boring compared to those. The leftmost in the centre row is pretty good too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I like the one in top right position. It is simple enough to render small, but still adds the difference in meaning from the VI-logo. /Ainali (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the respose everyone. Although there are minor variances in opinions, it seems for me that the version at the top right is the preferred one as it is also expected to render well at small sizes, and the file size can probably be kept quite small. I will ask the lady to optimize that one with respect to file size and also extract some of the other logos for user awards. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Are we sure that VICbot works properly? If I understand its specifications well, a promoted image like this one should have been processed three days ago, no? Or is there something wrong with the nomination page of this picture? --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The picture was ignored again today. There must be something wrong with it but I can't figure out what, for the moment. --Eusebius (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It is most probably due to an error in the bot implemention, which is not that mature yet (according to its author). The bot operator Dschwen has been notified, but is busy these days at a conference. He mentioned something about having a look at it this weekend. We can also switch to manual, but it is quite tedious, and I suggest, we wait a little to let the bot implementer fix it. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I didn't mean to complain or anything, just to provide feedback. --Eusebius (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for doing that. I did not perceive it as a complaint, just feedback. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I seems to be working alright again. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shorten review period for undisputed reviews

I propose to shorten the review period for undisputed reviews, such that candidates having only support or oppose votes can be closed sooner. It is my feeling that we have a slightly increasing activity and the undisputed reviews are very seldomly disputed after the first few days have passed. In that manner we can clear out some of the ripe nominations on the list, speed up the process a little for the clear cases and decrease clutter on the candidates list page. For disputed and unassessed candidates I think the current periods should be kept.

More specifically, I propose to change the current wording in Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules:

Nominations can be closed after the latest of: (a) 7 days after nomination, and (b) 48 hours after the last vote.


Undisputed nominations
Can be closed after the lastest of: (a) 4 days after nomination, and (b) 48 hours after the last vote
Disputed, unassessed, and undecided nominations
Can be closed after the latest of: (a) 7 days after nomination, and (b) 48 hours after the last vote.

The proposal makes the promotion rules slightly more complicated to remember, but I think it is outweighed by the benefits in having a more lean review process.

I can implement some helper logic in the templates used to display the candidates to help the closer see when the 4 or 7 day period has passed. The closer then only needs to check if the 48h rule is also fulfilled (I cannot implement support for that check in a template).

-- Slaunger (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you update the template the way you said, I have no objection. --Eusebius (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
No objections neither. Lycaon (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will let this thread be open a few days more, and then just do it. I will leave a notice on the candidates pages in the transition period to actively notify about the adjustment in the nomination periods. Images/sets nominated after midnight at a certain transition date will be closed in accordance with shortened review periods for undisputed reviews. Only after the transistion will I implement the closers guidance in the list templates to avaoid confusion in the transition period. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  Done The review period for undisputed reviews was shortened as agreed 2008-09-18 00:00 (UTC) and a guiding notice about the status of each individual nomination has been implemented in {{VI-closure-notice}} and incorporated in {{VIC-thumb}} and {{VISC-thumb}} using the current status and time of naomination as input. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

About scopes: narrow ones, organization


  1. We (I) have accepted several VIs with scopes limited to one (more or less famous) individual. Is it all right, is there a policy about that?
    The number of images Commons currently have within a given scope is irrelevant. The key question is if a given scope is of interest for Wikimedia projects. Not easy to say in a few words, but I think Commons:Valued image scope gives some more ideas. One of the points with VI is to encourage users to contribute with images of scopes, which we have never seen before. That is, to encourage a diversity in topics and fill in the missing gaps. When you fill a missing gap, it is easy to get a VI within that scope. If you want to get a VI of a much more typical scope (say sunset), the competition is much harder meaning that either you have to do something extraordinary concerning the image itself, or you should try finding another subject. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    I think I was not clear, sorry. By "individual" I didn't mean that there were only one image in the scope, but that the scope was "one particular person" (which is ok, according to the criteria, if the person is "notable"). In the case of king Juan Carlos I of Spain, it seems reasonable. In the case of an obscure French movie maker, is it? What is the limit? Should there be an article about the guy in one of the wikipediae? Is it a subjective arbitration? --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, OK. Well the example of the obscure french film maker depends. Obscure for you or obscure for Wikimedia Projects? It is of course the relavnce for Wikimedia projects, which should be considered. Yes, if the there is already a (non-stub) article about the person on a Wikipedia, and this does not appear to be just some self-promotion page, that is probably a good indicator. if there os not any mention of the person on Wikimedia projects I would be more cautionuous, but never automatically exclude; a reason for not having an article may be that a good photo is missing. In those cases, look around, elsewhere to see what you can dig up and make your own judgement. That judgement will be subjective and there is not a result sheet for whether the scope relevance bar has been set right. Just do your best.
  2. This is an obvious case where a categorization of the scopes would be useful (it would be nice to have a scope in the form "People/Name of the guy", for instance). Where are we about that issue? Statu quo on "flat" scopes?
    I think the flat, text-based scope overview should stay as it is as a bandwidth efficient appetizer, but on top of that we now have so many scopes that we need something more. What I have in mind is the allocation of each individual VI in topic specific galleries. What I have in mind is a structure similar to COM:VI. However, instead of just blindly copying the subdivision structure i think we should have a look at the VIs promoted so far as see how they spread out into the topic-specific galleries. For QI there is a cool tool in JavaScript which help the closer place a newly promoted VI in an appropriate subcategory in a form of assisted editing. I think we should adopt the same mechanism here, and I have previously contacted the QI JavaScript tool author Dschwen to enquire about a VI variant of the tool and it seems easy to do. We just need to agree on the subpages to use and tell him. I only have limited time for this in the near future, and i would like to ask if you Eusebius or parhaps another user would care to analyze how the QI subpage gallery system would work for us. For instance, if we were to use the same subpage structure how would the current VIs be distributed among them. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    You want me to make hierarchy proposals, is it what you mean? If so, ok, no problem (not right now, but soon). I just don't want to get involved in the code of a Python bot (cause I don't have time for that) nor in a Javascript tool (cause I hate JS :-). --Eusebius (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regards, Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. No coding involved for you, just a comparative study between COM:QI and COM:VI. Let me get you along the way:
    • This subpage structure works well for QIs and quite a lot of work has been put into making this organization. My proposal is now to go through our current VIs and have a look at how well or bad they fit into these subcategories. Based on the analysis make a proposal for VI subpages and agree on that. Once that is done it is simply a matter of creating the subpages, and handle the list to Dschwen such that he makes the VI organizer tool for us. My guess is that most of the structure can be reused, especially the structure relating to living organisms. I foresee some adjustments though. Whereas there can be very many QIs of sunsets of a high quality, it makes sense to have Commons:Quality images/Subject/Sunsets, whereas Commons:Valued images/Subject/Sunsets is probably not one we want to have. Similarly, the Panorama sub-subpages are probably irrelevant for VIs as well as the technical subpages. Hope that makes the task at hand clearer. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      I will make one proposal then (maybe more). I've been acquainted with the recently promoted QI page in the last weeks and have spent some time categorizing QIs, thus making my mind about what is practical and what is not in the category tree. I'll get back to you. --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      Great. For instance, I think we should elaborate more on the historical subpages than done for QI, as VI lets through relatively more historical images than QI. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Implication that voting has closed

Many of the new wordings such as "May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than ..." seem to imply, incorrectly, that no more votes are allowed. Except for the wording for closed nominations I think that all these texts should have "Open for review" added, for example: "Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than ..." --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll fix that right away. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  Done -- Slaunger (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand how this works

I'm not even going to get into the 'of its type' issue (but clearly 'type' seems very subjective, and any image is the best of some type, even if that category is very specific). What I came to ask is about the relativity of this status. What happens when a better image comes along and it's now a second (or third) rate image 'of its type'? I'm guessing it just stays 'valued', even if it is really somewhat devalued? Richard001 (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

About the last part of your question: the "valued image" status can be contested through the most valued review procedure, during which two candidates are compared. --Eusebius (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, deciding for an appropriate scope is one of the most challenging things. I would not say that any image is best of some type. Like, a completely blurred, lousy lightning, tilted, lousy resolution image om some subject at a given angle is for sure not as good at illustrating the subject, as a sharp, well lit, non-tilted, high resolution. High resolution image.
However, back to your questions: An existing VI within a given scope can always be challenged. This is done in a Most Valued Review (MVR), where a side-by-side review is done with one or more competing images. If one of the other images gets a larger positive MVR score than existing VI and other images in the MVR, that image is promoted to VI within the scope and the previous VI is demoted to "Former VI". Did you get that? If not, do not hesitate to ask again, or, you could try it out as nominator or reviewer. We can always use more images and reviewers. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(ancient) VICbot error?

Hi this picture had a VI tag with the scope "scope" instead of "Cheat sheet". I corrected that, but could there be other mistakes like this one? The promotion took place in june. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That one was a human error, from I think the days before we had VICbot. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't checked the history, sorry. No need to worry about other pictures then. --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

French translation of "valued image"

To the french-speaking people here: How would you translate VI and VI set?

  • Image de valeur and Collection d'images de valeur?
  • something else?

Thanks in advance. Oh, and if somebody is already translating the project pages in French, please tell me... --Eusebius (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can translate on this basis, Image de valeur and Série d'images de valeur, then. --Eusebius (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "scores" in the Eligibiligy paragraph of COM:VI? --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Sudden illumination) I assume it is about musical scores. --Eusebius (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope language

I do not think we have discussed this before, but should we have a preferred language for the scope? The question has been raised by me in Monastery of the Grande Chartreuse, where the stated scope "Monastère de la Grande-Chartreuse" is in French. The nomination is concerned with a monastery located in France, so it seems pretty reasonable.

On the other hand, there is an equivalent English name "Monastery of the Grande Chartreuse", which could have been used as well. The most common scope language so far has been in English (disregarding latin names for species of living organisms), and if we start mixing the languages, lists like Commons:Valued images by scope becomes somewhat messy to look at.

I guess we really ought to build up a scope system, which allows localization (translation) to the users preferred language in analogy with the templates used for COM:POTD. I do not know (for the time being) how to solve this from a technical point of view, but I could invest a little time to try and seek out some solutions. Until then I think it is important that we stick to one language, which can then be used as origin for translations of the scope, and I suggest this language should be English. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should stick to English (unless we have a really efficient localization tool), except for proper nouns (cities, buildings, people...), which usually do not translate. In your example, "Monastère" is to be translated but "Grande Chartreuse" is a proper noun and thus to be kept in its original language. --Eusebius (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we say something about it in the scope-related subpage? There has recently been a few pictures with language issues in the scope. BTW, what is the decision procedure in the VI project? Informal discussions here? --Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

VICbot errors

When preparing Commons:Valued images/sample, VICbot sometimes fails to find the scope of a VI, even though it is normally stated in the image page. See here, here (twice the same picture) and here. Eusebius (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It seems to be related to the correct handling of various types of one or more links in the scope. I have previously reported it to Dschwen. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

About sets

A VI set need not be from a single author, right? It can be a selection of pictures from various sources? --Eusebius (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, yes. We do not put the tag on sets to honour the creator but the set of images. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

adding a MVR

Hi, in the MVR nomination procedure page, it is stated that the new section must be added at the top. It is not consistent with the procedure for simple VICs, and it is not currently followed. Should it be corrected? --Eusebius (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be brought into consistency with the VICs and current practise. Well spotted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure of a VIS

In the closure procedure of a VIS, some steps (like the copying of the VISC in the "VI sets by scope" list) appear to be the kind of things that VICbot is able to do about other kinds of promoted candidatures. Is the procedure up-to-date? --Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is actually up-to-date. It was only during the last VIS closure that the last steps in the procedure was defined. And you are right that several steps are well suited for automation. More specifically; steps 4-11 could be automated. I have asked the bot implementer to do this some time ago. I guess we just need to be a little patient for Dschwen to get the time to do it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It was not a request, the demand is not so high. It's just that I finished the french translations today and wanted to know whether everything was ok about the translated procedures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed noms not removed due to a replication lag

In case anybody wonders why closed nominations only have been removed irregularly and incompletely from the candidates lists the last few days, I can inform it is due to a replication lag between the Wikimedia servers and the toolserver. The problem will be solved as the toolserver catches up with the latest changes. So please be patient. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Is this related to why images aren't being marked as VI? I've manually done so on one of my images. I hope that isn't a problem? J.smith (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Tagging the image with VI is just one of the quite many steps done in a closure by VICbot. I would actually like to request you to undo it and be a little patient concerning VICbot. I know it is currently a little annoying. There is not much we can do about it. Thank you. -- Slaunger (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, undone. J.smith (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you. The latest news I saw about the current situation is that restarting the replication after a core dump on some server has failed twice, but that it is hoped that the replication lag will be fixed by the end of the weekend. So, unfortunately we have to be patient for some more time. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the image in a review page

Hey. In a current VIC review, the image name has been changed (due to a change in the extension). Is VICbot supposed to take care properly of the "subpage" parameter of the VI tag in these cases? I'm not sure about it: see here for instance, the review page for the scope "Tawaf" (second scope of the VI) is not available from the image page (although I admit the cause is different). In such a case, should the nomination be withdrawn and the new image nominated again, or should we proceed with the new image in the original subpage? Additional question, Kim, you interface all VI-related communications with Dschwen, right? --Eusebius (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, VICbot ought to take care of the subpage parameter in those cases, but in the example you have provided it apparently does not do so. However, that should not keep us from using the system the way it was intended, which includes the possibility to change the image name during the course of the VIC review. The error should be reported, and no, I certainly do not have monopoly in reporting this to Dschwen. But he just wrote recently on his talk page that he is busy in RL at the moment, so it may take some time. In the meantime we can add the subpage parameter by hand in the cases where the image name and subpage names differ, or let a bot do it. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
VICbot has just failed my little test, it does not take care of the subpage parameter. I notify Dschwen. --Eusebius (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


I think that sounds should be eligible for VI, and have removed the rbitrary exclusion of them.

It has been reverted. Let's talk about it before making changes. --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone working in sounds on commons gets a big slap in the face when it comes to being recognised - the broken system used for MOTDD means that it's literally impossible to add new sounds without breaking it in all non-English languages that had descriptions added. Hence, there is no current way to get any recognition for sounds

Hence, arbitrary exclusions, such as the one implemented here, should be simply removed, unless there is a project that can handle them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The exclusion is not arbitrary: a sound is objectively not an image. This is a fact. What is arbitrary is the initiative taken in creating a project about valued images (or quality images, or featured pictures). I'm not very aware of the project you're mentioning, but I'm sure similar arbitrary (and valuable) initiatives could be taken regarding sounds or videos. --Eusebius (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on a sound project on English Wikipedia. It's horrible. It started well after other projects, so it's isolated, not well-connected, lacks representation, and the like. I'd love to start something here, but I want it integrated into the main commons community. VI is a project that could easily include sounds with the simple chance of a word or two, and this would integrate sound editors into the main commons community. So why not?
I was one of the people who helped out with the initial setup of this project. However, the photography community on commons is strong, there is no sound community. IT's not as simple to create a new project for sounds here, given that there's no real way to let people know about it unless you can get an in with an existing project first. By adding sounds here, we can begin to build the community necessary for making a stand-alone project. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A comment about a previous version of your reply: I'm not sure it would be so simple (to integrate other media in the project): the name of the project would have to be changed to something like "valued media", for instance. It seems to me that it would be simpler to have "twin projects", something like "valued sounds" and "valued videos", but maybe I'm wrong about that. A lot of adaptation work should also be done on the criteria, which are for the moment only adapted to images. Another problem is that reviewers for images, sounds, videos... are likely not to be the same, which would be a reason to keep them separated. --Eusebius (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The idea of embracing other types of media (like sound and video) in the VI project was discussed quite thoroughly when the outline of the project was defined [1][2]. I was against including these types of media at project startup for several reasons.
  1. The project should should be parallel to FP and QI. To give the project an identity which could be grasped by most Commons users I wanted the project to encompass the same types of media as these two other projects (to avoid confusion).
  2. At project startup it was my feeling that the availability of qualified contributions and especially reviewers for other media types was too low to warrant the inclusion of sounds and video.
  3. Preparing the guidelines, instructions and templates suitable for images was already turning out to require a substantial amount of work. Expanding these to also include sounds and video would require much more discussions and further delay of project launch.
  4. To try and be bold and do something new we had introduced the Valued image set idea, which users had to get used to.
I think the justifications for initially leaving out sounds and video were correct. However, now VI has matured and has a clear identity with a handful of dedicated followers and a larger ensemble of loose affiliates, and it may be the the time to think of how to expand the concept.
I agree with Adam that it is hard for sound contributors to get recognition of their work at Commons. The image community is very strong and it is hard to penetrate with other media types than images. Thus, we do not really have a forum for dedicated sound- and video-affectionados. I would like to see parallel Valued Sound and Valued Video subprojects be initiated to stimulate these overlooked media types.
However, as Eusebius also has stated the solution is not to just let VI include sounds as media types for the reasons stated
  1. The current criteria are image specific.
  2. The VI templates are specifically made to handle images, not sound.
  3. The name of the project does not match with sound (or video for that matter).
  4. The logo used to tag promoted images and sets does not match
Thus, the only way I see we could launch a VS, would be to define a new parent project, called Valued Media (VM) as a root project which then has the subprojects Valued Images (VI), Valued image sets (VIS), Valued Sound (VS), Valued Video (VV), and possibly other subprojects, I have not thought about. All nominations from all subprojects could then be presented on one big Valued Media Candidates page as well as on subproject specific candidates pages. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • From a more outside perspective there is a way to incorporate sound(even video in the future) into the current VIS process in that a Valued image set could just become Valued Set//Valued media set. Currently a set is a collection of images where as if it becomes a collection of media, then it doesnt matter what the collection is all images, all sound or a combination of both, the expansion even opens up the inclusion on non-photographic image. Its a small scale introduction into the community judgement process, providing it has a simple criteria to assess the sound file then most editors will be able to make the assessment.
as an example VMS for a frog could be images of the tadpoles and frog, a sound bite, an anatomical diagram, a distribution map, and an etching from 1830.
This is first step, once there are the people able to assess sound files in detail then QI could easily incorporate a QS under the same basic criteria of being self made. Yeah I recognise that as one of the people who started QI its may appear that I'm pushing it off to VI but I'm not I just dont think the community//editors have the skills to endorse a sound as being "Quality" where we do have the ability to identify a recording that is of a standard that it compliments and enhance the visual media we already have. This would encourage editors to consider adding a digital recorder to their camera bag to record both visual and audio aspects of the subject. More future thinking is that VMS could ultimately say if the subject produces a sound then it needs to be a part of the collection to get promoted. Gnangarra 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If I might suggest a way forward, if Valued sounds and Valued Videos were on the same voting page as images, but in their own section, then they wouldn't be isolated, but would keep VI with its current identity. I like Garra's suggestion of making sets multimedia by default, though. I could probably come up with some basic criteria - for this particular project, I think the main thing to insist upon is a good standard of documentation, and I have some good ideas about that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think something along those lines could be done (combine VICs, VISCs, VSCs, VVCs, VMSCs on one page). I suggest though that we try to discuss some examples of sound and video (as we did for the images) first to help us settle the valued criteria for video and sound. I can see the perspective in having the valued media sets, but I am concerned that they will be too sparse and exotic to get a natural flow of nominations going. Today we have the image sets, which is a little more exotic that the VIs and we have actually only promoted a few handful of those over the last five months. To see if VIM could be relevant I would like to see one or two experimental nominations to be discussed to see if it makes it over the relevance bar. From a practical point of view I am concerned if a combined nomination page for all these types of media will simply be too large to load for most of our users. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the sounds and sets of sounds at en:WP:FS, to start off? And some of them could be media-setted with scores or other related images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sample Set

Here's a sample set of what I suggested, the audio plus sheet music. This is a more obvious combined set,

Ain't we got fun

Then there are things like animals/birds and their call, or a President during a speech, a recording of the speech and the written text of the speech. Gnangarra 11:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova has been working with me to make a wide variety of sets of that type. Some examples are available at en:User:Durova, though, generally, only the first page of the music is shown there, to save space. Scores probably shouldn't be featurable on their ow, but as part of a wider set, I could definitely see them as useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good example of what could be a Valued Media Set - the complete package so to say. In this case the scores seems natural to include because the song is performed by the writers of the lyrics. I think it would be more difficult if it were scores which was later instantiated in many different forms by many different performers. I do not think it would be particularly meaningful to pick out a single performer in that case, unless, of course, it was widely accepted as the performance of a given score. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think this is a VS as the lyrics performed by Billy Jones arent the same as in the sheet music. That to me should be one of the first things to take into account when considering the set, I dont think we have enough skilled people to actually consider the recording quality in any fine audio detail, but the lyrics is something anyone can check. I propose some general criteria for sound recordings within a VS. Gnangarra 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, sheet music for popular songs usually leaves out a lot of lyrics, often simplifying or bowlderising the song. I don't think I've ever seen an exact match for anything roughly contemporaneous, except for the sheet music to opera, operettas, and musicals. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

VS Sound Criteria proposal

  1. clarity - no obvious or intrusive background noise. this means no needle noise from the record used, no car/street/crowd noises in the background. The sounds should be only those associated with the recording such applause and audience noise can be acceptable for a live recording, but a baby crying when its recording a lion roar isnt.
  2. performance - Lyrics should be the same as the sheet music if both comprise part of the set.
  3. performer - the Performers including orchestra/band/group should be identified if known, photographs in the set should be of the same, though they dont need to be from the same venue.
  4. licensing - obviously a free licensed recording, with source.

It sounds good, though I'd add one exception: for rather old recordings, a bit of hiss or crackle may be acceptable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Add a new Nomination

The Commons:Valued image candidates/ thing isn't here when you try to nominate a image. The query space is just all blank. Can someone fix this? --Mr. Mario (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that isn't just me? I find that everywhere the inputboxes are used. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The same with me, with the button's title in Portuguese. Another nice improvement from the little green guys behind the scene? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • They are having the same problems at WP:FPC. Apparently due to a bug in the Mediawiki software. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing the scope once promoted

Is there a procedure for proposing a change in the scope of a promoted VI? To propose a restriction for instance, from a "building" scope to a "building (interior)" scope and ask reviewers their opinion about it? --Eusebius (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not have a procedure for changing the scope of an already promoted VI. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Divine comedy set candidates

I hope you don't mind me breaking them up like this - it seemed a bit better than having a proposed set of 76 images, which would probably break the formatting. Even as it is, there will be a set of 24 (Dante's eighth circle of Hell, Malebolge, is by far the most detailed of the circles, and consists of 10 sub-circles, plus a subplot about demons trying to trick Dante and Virgil, and... well, you get the idea.) If you'd really rather have the set of 76 or so, just say. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to check, you'll be able to submit every single one of them? If so, it is great. I was actually wondering what was the best way to organize them. Still thinking about it. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and Purgatorio and Paradiso, actually, but those were done several years later and only have about a dozen each. I'm not going to get them all done today, but I've done about a sixth of the Inferno scans already, so...

There are one or two that will need some restoration work - the people putting together the book have not taken much care on that account - and there's a frontispiece image of Dante that I don't really know what set to throw into, and so might just nominate it as an image. (It'll need some restoration, though - there's a scanner error half-way down). But none of these problems are either insurmountable or even particularly difficult if you've worked with engravings as long as I have. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for all this work, then! I promise I'll make remarks & reviews once I've made my mind about scope granularity. --Eusebius (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Actually, there may be a slight delay in Circle 2 and 3: there's some major printing errors in three or four of the images, and I'd like to see if I can find a better copy at the library for at least those. The rest of the book seems to be fine, and worse comes to worse, I can substitute lower-resolution Gutenberg scans for those few images, but I'd prefer it if I could avoid compromise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

An example:


It's not just that one is darker than the other: It's that in the print I have, the dark areas become seas of black, instead of Doré's precise lines. Clearly, the printer got badly overinked for a few plates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This one is merely lower quality in the book I'm working from, but there's one with three main figures where only one of them can be made out at all in the print I have.

I'm just glad that it's only these few images, though - if it were lots and lots of images, I'd be very, very upset at the bookseller I got this from. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. I have thought about it and I would rather review the whole set of the Inferno. I don't mind having a set of 76 pictures, as long as it has value and a good scope. I think slicing the scope would be somewhat arbitrary, and definitely against the unity proposed by Dante (well, unless you make a scope per canto, but most picures would feel quite lonely in their set, and we would lack a nice way to link the different sets. I think three sets for the whole Divine Comedy is a good choice (at least for the engravings). --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"More reviewers needed"

I think we need a way to attract reviewers on the candidates where we need more opinions. Any idea about how to do that, and in which case? --Eusebius (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bald eagle - Valued image scope

There seems to be some disagreement on VI scope. Bald Eagle in flight was opposed one due to too narrow of a scope but yet there is the scope "Graphosoma lineatum (mating)" as well as "Anthidium florentinum (mating)". Can you explain this discrepancy? One species can have a scope on a certain activity and yet another can't (my nom). While we're on VI images, since Bald Eagles can seemingly only have one scope, which of these is the best VI candidate: Image:Eagle on roots - crop 3 (430008061).jpg or Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg? RlevseTalk 15:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your question is justified, and non-trivial. I move it on the talk page of the VI project, where you'll be able to see that it's closely related to the discussion I've just launched there. --Eusebius (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
For the moment, there is no written policy about that kind of "sub-scope" for one species, and I'd like to build one. Until then, scope assessment is quite subjective, some reviewers may think that one scope is justified, while others don't. It can sometimes look unfair, especially because we have very few reviewers. In the case of your picture, I chose to leave the nomination open one week (it could have been closed much sooner), because I was the only one having expressed an opinion about it, and it was not a support (I usually do that when I'm the only one to oppose a picture nobody has supported). I want to point out the fact that you can resubmit an "undecided" candidate anytime (see procedure here). Furthermore, if you want to improve that perfectible system, you can either take some time to review other nominations from time to time, if you're at ease with the criteria (so that the decisions do not rely on too few reviewers), or you can contribute to the discussion right above, in order to help making the scope-related rules clearer and more objective. Or, you can do both. --Eusebius (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
"It can sometimes look unfair", uh, it IS unfair, especially when these things are decided by one person who himself has VI images with subscopes. Yes, this policy needs to be much fairer and I for one want to see some consistency from the community on this. RlevseTalk 22:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. Please remember that I haven't oppose your "flying" scope. So please don't blame me because no other reviewer has given her opinion about it, ok?
  2. Let's contribute to the debate, which scope (of mine or not) do you think should have been questionned, what kind of rule could you propose? You want some consistency from the community, then be part of it, it's the best way. --Eusebius (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • In the case of insect species, there was sone discussion about the possibility of considering three scopes: one for males, another for females and the last for mating. At the time I had some doubts and took the initiative of asking the opinion of other people when one of my own pictures was being evaluated. Maybe it is just not possible to have general rules on all kinds of subjects and we'll have to discuss them case by case. It would be so much easier with more reviewers! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Birds fly. It's not a big stretch to have a scope of flying and non flying when there are several to choose from for a species. If insects can have multiple scopes, why not others? Why are male and female bug VIs okay when you often can't even tell them apart and not subscopes for others for which the differences can readily be seen?RlevseTalk 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vue de Mâcon.jpg

Would this image be a good candidate ? - Erik Baas (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, no: it is neither geotagged nor categorized. Please have a look at the criteria and don't hesitate to nominate pictures as soon as you think they fulfil them. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

VI categories organisation proposal

Here is a first proposal for categorizing VIs. It is of course very close to the QI tree. For valued images, I guess only the classification by subject is significant.

I have removed several cats that are technically oriented (like non-photographic media or panorama) or inadapted (like closeups). I have begun to develop a few cats, like People and Places, in a way that might also be useful to QIs (or at least, that I would find more useful than their "man made structures" cat).

I tried to adapt the cats to the existing and foreseen VI scopes. Discussion is needed on some points (identified in the list) before we converge on an organization.

Open question: should the categorization be included in the scope, or should there be a manual step like for QIs? I think the nominator should find the right cat (the scope thus being a path in the tree), to be refined at review time. How would that articulate with scope change procedures? Warning: some scopes have slashes in them. --Eusebius (talk)

Very nice work Eusebius! My immediate impression is that most of your additions/adjustments makes sense. Some minor tweaking is probably needed, will get back later this evening with more input. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have gone through some of the VIs and tried to envision where they should be placed. Not surprisingly, it is sometimes hard to place it right. What we have here is a parallel miniature of the real category structure, and I think nomatter how we do it, there will be cases where it will not work and give ambiguous choices. I will not edit directly in the proposal above. I think we should incorporate changes based on discussion here, and consensus to do it. Here are my observations so far:
  • The animals struture seems to work fairly well. maybe the anthropods suBcategories are a little too detailed? At least it seems quite a lot of them are only sparsely or un-populated at the time so far. That may change of course over time.
    I agree. I just didn't touch this structure. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Let us keep then. It also gives us a possibility to easily link between QI and VI galleries for animals (synergy effect). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The proposed addition of Commons:Valued images/Animals/Animal behaviour is interesting as many VIs relate to animal behaviour. On the other hand any animal is behaving somehow on an any image, and how should we decide if a VI of the common frog mating should go here or in the Amphibians subpage? Maybe we should get rid of it again as it will perhaps cause some confusion. The VI of a wasp paralysing a fly is interesting too. Should it go to the wasps subpage, the flies subpage or the behaviour subpage (or all of them perhaps)?
    My main motivation here was the VI sets. If you want to illustrate a species, one picture is often enough, but the VI sets often illustrate dynamic processes. "Behaviour" might not be the right word however. I will not fight for this cat anyway :-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Ah. I had only the images in mind. For now there are so few VISs that it does not make much sense to organize them - yet.
    OK, I have striked it out - for now. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I had difficulty placing the seamouse in a suitable subpage, but that as well be due to my ignorance of what kind of animal that is!
  • It is my impression that Commons:Valued images/Concepts and ideas/Scientific will become over-populated. I was thinking of another subdivision like
    I think you're about to trigger some nice and uncontrollable debates over the nature of some sciences and their respective frontiers :-) I would isolate mathematics from the natural sciences (physics/chemistry) and put it with computer science. I would keep engineering in spite of its questionable nature. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm.. the I'll rather isolate mathematics entirely. Actually, that was my initial thought, but then I was concerned that subpage would be too small.
      OK, I tried to incorporate this. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole stuff about historical: There will be quite some historical images on VI, and I am unsure whether historical should be a subpage under other pages, like Commons:Valued images/Events/Historical, Commons:Valued images/Science/Historical, Commons:Valued images/People/Historical, Commons:Valued images/Places/Buildings/Historical, or if History should be a parent subpage, like Commons:Valued images/Historical/Events, Commons:Valued images/Historical/People, Commons:Valued images/Historical/Buildings, Commons:Valued images/Historical/Extinct organisms, Commons:Valued images/Historical/Culture, etc...?
    I think it depends. I would keep a parent subpage for history (in which we would have events, culture and the other subpages I suggested), but I would leave people to people, extinct organism to zoology and buildings to buildings (even for disappeared people, species or buildings). It just seems more natural to me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    That seems reasonable. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Incorporated. (Please check) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not think we need Commons:Valued images/Objects/Geological objects/Fossils and Commons:Valued images/Objects/Geological objects/Rocks, Minerals, Elements. *Commons:Valued images/Objects/Geological objects. Commons:Valued images/Objects/Geological should be enough. Perhaps the fossils should be a subpage to animals?
    No opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    OK, let's keep to get as many similarities with QI as possible. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am wondering if Commons:Valued images/Events/Rare events should be added (catapult ejection from aerorplane, aeroplane crashing on flight carrier)?
    No opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    On second thought, I think we can do without. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not too keen on the wording used for Commons:Valued images/People/Politics and monarchs. We certainly need a subpage for those very influential people, who are not artists, athletes, scientists and experts. I am not sure what to call them though. How about "Leaders"?
    Leaders is fine, thanks. Time magazine chose "Leaders" for its own categorization of influential people, I should have thought of that one :-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Good!-- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Incorporated. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are actors considered "artists"?
  • How about adding Commons:Valued images/People/Demographics, culture and social aspects (or something like that)? for stuff like the national costumes of Greenland?
    I think we will soon need a whole Commons:Valued images/Greenland subpage :-P. More seriously, I would have put it under "concept and ideas/social", or something similar, in order to keep "people" for identified individuals, but I realize we will need "people" for more than that, so why not. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    "concepts and ideas/social" could also be generalized to "concepts and ideas/social and cultural". -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Incorporated /Social and Cultural
  • I am wondering where I should put the unsafe water source image? Do we need something related to infrastructure or is that some other type of object or part of the aforementioned demographics, culture and social aspects subpage under people?
    I would have put it under "activities/techniques", but your demographics subpage looks adapted. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    OK -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • How about adding Commons:Valued images/People/People at work? (Like the traffic controller image)
    Why not. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    OK ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Incorporated. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a lot will end up in Commons:Valued images/Buildings/Other with the current proposal, like dam penstocks, car park ramps, etc. Do we need other subpages under buildings (or man made structures?) to cope with examples like that?
    I would put the dam in the industrial building subpage. I think there are more subpages to be added to buildings, but I just haven't found more so far. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Maybe we should go through the building related VIs so far and se what subtopics we could divide them into? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Have not had time to do this. Let us keep it as it is. We can always split out later if this becomes relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Concerning plants, we have quite some images which make a point of showing the whole plant to illustrate a specific species, but I cannot find a suiting subpage for that. Maybe add Commons:Valued images/Plant life/Species. And why not do: "Plant life" -> "Plants" for simplicity?
    Do we even need so much detail in "plant life"? --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm, maybe not, although I think there will be many plants VIs. The subdivision could also be made into "/native", and "/cultivated" or something like that... -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not very fond of it, actually. It may be difficult to say for the persons in charge of classification. I would be totally unable to do it for most of the flower close-ups in QI. What would be the status of a "native" plant exceptionnally cultivated in a greenhouse? I'd go for something simpler, like dividing between "whole plants" and "plant parts" or something like that. --Eusebius (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    That is a good point. How about simply adding "Whole plants" to the existing and let the others stay there. There are as many plant related VIS (if not more) than animal-related, so some subpages are needed to avoid over-populated subpages. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I've added /Whole plants. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That's all for now. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I just want to add that I think it is impossible to totally eliminate the roots of debate and arbitration over the scopes, due to the mere nature of VIs. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand what you mean, when you say scopes here? Is scopes the same as the subpages for you in this context or am I misunderstanding? Anyway, I agree that nomatter how we organize the subpages there will be cases when images just do not fit in very well. We should not be too distressed about that.
Is there a one-to-one relationship between an image or a VI subpage, or can a VI associate to several subpages (think in terms of categories) If we allow the latter, we may solve some of the doubts, like the "spider paralyzing a fly" example (spiders, flies, and behavior)? -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If we use the same tools used on QIs, it is a one-to-one relationship. The limits of it are being discussed (mostly because of the "technical" subpages), but I think it will stay like that. I would go for a 1-to-1 here, for the sake of simplicity. --Eusebius (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Besides the simplicity point, there is also an exposure point. Users could be inclined to put own images in several subpages to increase exposure. Let us keep it as a 1-1 relationship and just accept the ambiguities. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Good work. I have no major disagreement with the proposal above. It is a pretty simple and to some extent subjective categorisation system that answers the needs. I would suggest to keep it as simple as possible, as much as possible in line with the QI system and leave the categorisation system in the hands of a small team to ensure consistency and adaptability to emerging needs while avoiding overcategorisation. --Foroa (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I think you are right that there would be a point in making the structure as similar to QI as possible (I image to create links between equivalent topics between QI and VI). I have therefore cut somewhat down on my proposed "deviations" from QI and only kept those, which I think are really needed to also encompass the inherently different types of images promoted to VI as compared to QI. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a quick look at the updates, seems ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made a request for comments at Commons talk:Quality images candidates. Once we get the feedback from there, I think we should just go ahead, create the subpages and notify Dschwen, the tool implementer. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Any news? --Eusebius (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I think we should just go on and actually create those pages. I actually meant to do it this weekend, but suddenly I got detoured by other activities. Once the (empty) pages have been generated, we should notify Dschwen and ask him to set up an adequate tool for actually adding the VIs to them galleries. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. Do we have to create the pages manually? --Eusebius (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that is no big deal. As a matter of fact i think we will do something smart where he show the images in the most specific galleries in the review size, and then in normal gallery size when transcluded into parent galleries. And for each image it would be best if we can get Dschwen to display the scope of nomination as the caption for each VI in the galleries. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't get you. If I can do something right now, just tell me, but the simple way, please :-) --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahm, I think it will be easier if i start out, then you can folow the example. Don't have time now then. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. You tell me. --Eusebius (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I dropped some of the fancy stuff for now. I have created the first few (empty) gallery pages and also some parent pages. I have created a mother of all galleries page: Commons:Valued images/All which transcludes all subpages (the redlinked ones are not created yet), which again transcludes their subpages and so forth. See Commons:Valued images/Activities and its edit page for an example. I have done some minor tweaks to slightly change the appearance and headings on some pages depending on whether it is shown by itself or transcluded into a parent category. See Commons:Valued images/Activities/Other for an example. Fell free to continue the work. I will be busy the next few days and do not expect to be much around. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. Busy too, but will continue your work as soon as I can. --Eusebius (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Hmmm... as I am working on this I notice the capitalizations of the sub page names are inconsistent. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the English language to say which form of capitalization is the right one? -- Slaunger (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would use a capital for any first word after a slash, and nowhere else (since I think there are no proper nouns in the list). --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. We do not call it Valued Images either. I will make the relevant changes then. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  Done - after doing 150 edits or so and creating a lot of new subpages. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have provided Dschwen with a list of topical VI gallery subpages and asked him to make the JS for the VI gallery assignment tool. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for having failed you here... Bad timing. Thanks for your work anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Who said you have failed? No, on the contrary, you made a good initial proposal and I happened to have a few extra hours of spare time last night! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 4".