Open main menu

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 7

< 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.


VI set just promoted, but there was already a VI for the same scope

A set has just been promoted for the scope Boloria chariclea : Valued image set: Boloria chariclea but no one had noticed during the review that there was already a VI for this scope: File:Boloria chariclea upernavik kujalleq 2007-07-24 2.JPG. How could we solve this issue? Now there are too many VI seals on the gallery page: Boloria chariclea --Myrabella (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Set up an MVR for the two top views. The 'winner' goes in the set and the 'looser' gets demoted. Dura lex, sed lex. Lycaon (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. That could be done, but if the older one was confirmed, the set would be less consistent and homogeneous I guess. --Myrabella (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my lack of diligence. I see no guidance on this matter in Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure. Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review says, "If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR." Discussions on delisting occurred at User_talk:Slaunger/Valuable_Images#Errors_in_deciding_what_is_.27most_valuable.27., User_talk:Slaunger/Valuable_Images#VI_delisting. They were summarized in section 6 of User:Slaunger/Valuable_Images. More recent discussions occurred at Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_1#Once_a_VI.2C_always_a_VI_vs._Most_Valued_Review and Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_4#Don.27t_understand_how_this_works. A recent proposal exists, "There cannot be both a valued image and a valued image set of the same scope. They may compete for the status in a most valued review." (User talk:MichaelBueker/VISC draft) I think that is too strong since "Criteria 1, 2, and 3 should be applied to the set taken as a whole. It is not required that each individual image be capable of satisfying these criteria in its own right." (Commons:Valued_image_criteria#Valued_image_set_criteria) That opens the possibility of a valued image set that does not include the most valued individual image. I found nothing inconsistent with Lycaon's opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, there is a strong difference between   and   . Then, the pictures of the set in the gallery are badly illustrated with the VI seal: They are not "valuable images", but "valuable images as part of a set". Not the same ! They need the VIS seal. Once this correction done, the problem looks more simple, I think. In the gallery, you will have only one "valuable image", and some "valuable images as part of a set". It is not a requirement for a picture to be "valuable image" alone when it is part of a "valuable set". Then, I think we could have one (only one, ok) "valuable image" and one (only one) "valuable set" with different images, in the same scope.--Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If a single VI is illustrative enough to typify a scope, there's no need of a set. And if a set is a better illustration of the topic, the former VI should be demoted IMO. By the way, there has been a previous case. --Myrabella (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not have any strong opinion whether a VI and a VIS with the same scope can co-exist. It was not something, which was originally considered when drafting the rules. We almost had a consensus on the first section in User talk:MichaelBueker/VISC draft once. Somewhow the discussion died (I plead guilty on that part). Maybe it would be an idea to finally get a consensus on this? In that proposal it is indicated that a VI and VIS cannot co-exist. In the specific case (and as the creator of the first VI within this scope) it seems pretty clear to me thatthe set by Walter is more valuable than my VI, and, in fact, I think Walters first photo in the set would win over my VI as well if they went head to head in an VI MVR, as Walters photos are better than my severely cropped photo from a 2007 compact camera which is not properly focused either (although the location is somewhat exotic). --Slaunger (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Revival of the discussion about new Valued Image Set Criteria

Hello everyone! I' like to revive the discussion about new criteria for Valued Image Sets, as I felt it was going nicely, when, I am sorry to admit, I went inactive for personal reasons and the discussion stalled.
See the original discussion, but more importantly, see the standing proposal for new criteria! It has evolved through the contributions of five people and seems to me a vast improvement over the very curt criteria we have in place now. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rereading this quite some months later still makes sense to me. It is surely much better than what we have, but I also find some of the sections rather abstract or intimidating for a beginning set nominator. Esspecially, item number 3 with the many detailed subitems. This seems quite hard to digest for the average reader. I was wondering if some of this could go to a subpage and the basic headline could be kept as it is with other topics dealt with. Alternatively, I was wondering is it could be copyedited into a more "graspable" form? --Slaunger (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

  Comment -- I didn't read it all carefully but already found something I dont agree with: "There should especially be no single image of equal or greater value", in item 1. If strictly applied to the existing sets, it would probably delist most of them. See, for example aper wasp colony and Wasp parasitism. The important thing is not that all images in the set are the best available in its particular "sub-scope" but that the set, as a whole, is the most valuable. To reach this requirement all images have to make a balanced set. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. It means to say, "There should especially be no single image that in itself has equal or greater value than the whole set". --MichaelBueker (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A VI promoted for a scope that doesn't exist

An image had been promoted few months ago for the scope "Vespa Lambro", but it seems that this model of vehicle doesn't exist in fact, see the edit summary of this action of the bot CommonsDelinker. Now there is this renamed image, File:Innocenti Lambro 200.png, still bearing a VI label for the scope "Vespa Lambro". What to do in such cases? --Myrabella (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Error with an Acacia species

Another editor has spotted the error of File:Acacia cardiophylla 08.jpg which is infact a Acacia dealbata. Is there an easy way of fixing it since the file is a VI. Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cared about this?
You can edit the file description and category as usual.
To get rid of the VI seal, we should open a Most Valued Review with any image mnatching the scope? (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, file description and categorization should be corrected directly + {{rename}} added. For VI treatment, I suggest to remove the VI seal on the file, remove the links to this file in VI galleries, add some words on the review page to explain the move. Let's wait 2 days for possible comments or suggestions. --Myrabella (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  Done in the absence of further comment or advice, apart from renaming the file (I'd prefer to have the author's OK). I hope I haven't messed up anything. --Myrabella (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Replacing VIs

What should you do if you have a better picture than the VI in a certain scope? Do you nominate the other picture for the second time and than open an MVR? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you let it compete with the existing VI head-to-head in an MVR. --Slaunger (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You can see two recent examples here: Commons:Closed_most_valued_reviews/2010/08#Frankfurt_am_Main and Commons:Closed_most_valued_reviews/2010/09#Coreus_marginatus (this last one with more than one challenger). Hoping it will be useful, --Myrabella (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Large sets

I've just added Commons:Valued image candidates/Locator maps of English ceremonial counties. Obviously whether the set meets the criteria is discussion for its VISC page. However a few broader issues it raises:

  1. Should VISCs with such a large set of images be allowed - and if so can the displayed gallery be made smaller?
  2. Is that class of imagery (ie basic locator maps) within VI scope?

There's probably other things too. Obviously my opinion is obvious enough (otherwise I wouldn't have made the nom in first place!).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • My general opinion is that the fewer the pictures in a set the better, but I would not prevent large sets of being nominated. In this particular case, I don't see the need for a set. A single image using colours and/or symbols to identify each county is a better solution imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well yes and no IMO - some potential VI sets would logically be large (due to the need to be comprehensive). A another example would be for eg the Messier objects, where a full listing would be more valuable than a partial list. On the other hand, representative sets are obviously more valuable at times - a VI set of "Mammals" ought to include a representative species from each order/family, but not every last species. With respect to the specific case, a single image would work better for the scope "Ceremonial counties of England". However, that image would not be as useful for illustrating the location of any one of the counties - the individual map relevant to that county does that better. IMO in cases like that its better to have one VISC than 47 individual, but strongly related, VICs - if only because its more efficient.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the question and providing an example. I'll be curious to see the response. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually one point here is a strictly technical one, is it optionally possible to reduce the size of the images on VISC pages? With big sets like the county one it would be helpful to have smaller pics, to get to the discussion more readily.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Remit of VI and "trivial" images

My understanding of the purpose of VI is to identify the most valuable images on Commons within a certain scope. There's also the secondary purpose of recognising contributors (and in so doing encouraging more valuable uploads). However, are there files that are definitely the most valuable of their scope on Commons but may not be eligible for VI status due to their nature. A few examples here:

  1. Flags of countries - eg scope: Flag of the United States?
  2. Locator maps (cf Valued image candidates/Locator maps of English ceremonial counties for example)?
  3. Location maps eg File:France location map-Regions and departements.svg?
  4. Geometric shapes - eg scope: Platonic solids? suggests here that because one cannot determine a superior version for trivial works - as any visualisation of the data will produce same result - one cannot select the most valuable. However, I'd disagree. Looking at an extreme case, I think you can select the potential VI for the scope "Flag of Libya". Which of the possibles has the most correct colour and aspect ratio? Of those, which is an SVG? That selects the one image (File:Flag of Libya.svg) that would get the label. If there were multiple SVGs with identical appearance, one should be arbitrarily chosen (the smallest file size with valid code maybe?) deleting the surplus as duplicates.

I am not so sure about the overarching question though: Should "simple" works be eligible for VI status? IMO they should be, as the purpose of VI is to enable users to find the most valuable image in the scope. If a scope can be determined, and an image identified, it helps users even for the most trivial of cases. If these are not eligible, the VI criteria should encapsulate that fact somehow.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Pure iron phase diagram (EN).svg is the precedent I had in mind. (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't establish precedent: An "undecided" doesn't mean anything. I'd personally have supported that as its the only image for that scope on Commons. "Given the numeric data, the graph is determined" doesn't mean anything. In that case, the creator had the freedom to choose colours, scale etc but that's not really the point. If there genuinely was one possible way of expressing the data - what's that got to do with VI? If the image is of that unique representation, and the scope is a valid one ("Pure iron phase diagram" sounds like a decent scope), then it is the best (and only) possible image of that scope - so passes VIC 1 and 2.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd also point out Commons:Valued images#Eligibility indicates all images are eligible. One user saying "I'm not sure its eligible" and another saying "I don't think so" is hardly a strong consensus. It might be worth formulating a vote here - the proposition is a straight-forward one (the eligibility criteria is what would need changing in the even of non-acceptance).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the suggestion by to restrict image eligibility will further the goals of Commons. These images are valuable and deserve recognition. That may encourage contributors. In the same way, a photograph of a unique event would merit recognition. That is true even if it were the only such photograph, as long as it depicted its subject well and satisfied the other five criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with suspicious accounts?

A poll is now taking place in FPC talk on the possibility of restricting the participation to users with a minimum account age and minimum number of edits. For what I see, the problem of new accounts being created with the purpose of supporting certain nominations is also happening here now. I wonder is a similar measure should be taken in VIC. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well we are recruiting new editors. Of course they will be new. I am not encouraging people to just vote for themselves, but to get involved. I agree that new people need to learn to ropes. Dont know exactly how to handle it. Mdupont (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Restrictions on voting do not seem necessary here, for now. Hope it will continue like this... Yann (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • APTOC is another newly recruited member? I will nominate no more pictures to VIC until the problem is acknowledged. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info -- A request for checkuser has been made here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

By topic gallery

(sorry for the consecutive posts etc). Commons:Valued images by topic is a very poor page as it stands and should really be split up into multiple sub-pages. In its current form, its over 10MB in size (1MB html and 9MB in the thumbnails).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Life forms, people and places are the largest sections and could be made into sub-pages. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to mention about the gallery. I cannot find this recently promoted image:   in the gallery. Its section IS EMPTY. Also this one:   is not placed there (don't know which section). Furthermore, After the MVR about Dilma Rousseff that is finished the old image is still there so Dilma has 2 photos in the gallery.--MrPanyGoff 10:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Further info: Dilma Roussef: fixed. Cycles and motocycles: some search still needed. --Myrabella (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • BMW K1300R in Cycles and motocycles gallery: fixed by Eusebius. Gallery code was malformed. --Myrabella (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As for the gallery as a whole I have the same observation as Nilfanion mention above. This is a very important gallery. And together with the Featured one they are both the most representative thing in Wikimedia commons. It should be easily accessible. Furthermore, I think that the gallery is somehow hard to be found by the common audience. In addition I would like to see the gallery of the VIS. It should be also placed somewhere in the front line to catch the attention. Now I think that the audience even don't know about VIS existance. After all these photos are not only a game for about 50 keen on Commoners here.--MrPanyGoff 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Impossible to provide an image for VI. I have the following message and I can not go further. « please keep the 'Commons:Valued image candidates/' prefix, » Does anyone has an idea? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Have same problem, obvious some problems there (server-software) ? --Mile (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See Eusebius' answer (in French ; = "report the bug on Commons:Village pump please". Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Issue fixed by Dschwen. --Myrabella (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


I just wonder... can one category has a VIS and a VI at the same time? No matter if the VI is taken from the VIS or not.--MrPanyGoff 06:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems again

Massages not seen execpt when editing. --Mile (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Not anymore, OK now. --Mile (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Valued set promotion

Is there any rule how many photos in set can be ? --Mile (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Example of a set with many images. The selection of the images included in the set must be relevant, though.--Myrabella (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I intent to make a set of city, because really couldnt choose between panorama and city centre, so set with few valuable highligths panorama-centre, 3 fotos. Was that kind of set ever made ? --Mile (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is VIC dying? (continuation)

Once this topic was created by User:The High Fin Sperm Whale and it seems that it is still actual. In my opinion this is very important project (not to say the most important in commons). I wonder which one out of these three is the main reason for the situation: 1. There is no interest because of some reasons (mainly some vague parts in the criteria that allow presence of a double standard). 2. There is interest but none wants to make efforts and noone wants to spend a minute or two. 3. Intentional sabotage (including the passivity which can be intentional so that some lines or topics to be blocked)...?!?! That is very very hard to move on...--MrPanyGoff 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • There have been fluctuations worse than this. Do not get discouraged. We are starting a large project. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Drafting problem of scopes.

There is no problem on the images that deserve their label. But there is a problem of choice on the future of the label itself. If we restrict ourselves too much, we will create future conflicts between images and photographs, but also between the whole or part of subjects like monuments, where we've already added interior and exterior subscopes. The purpose is not to manage conflictd and have heated discussions, but rather to see more and more people interested in this label. If we restrict the label too much, then it will die (it is already very ill, and we owe it to MrPanyGoff) to maintain it. If we open our choice of well-defined scopes this will allow us to give the VI seal to: drawings, photographs as well as anomic pieces; inside, outside of churches, but also their bell towers ... There must be space for all and for everyone. If we love this label, we must make it live.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. What guideline do you propose to change? The only restriction on subscopes is not too narrow. Is this too restrictive? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The purpose is not to change the rules but apply them more flexibly. In trying to open a wide field of investigation for each subject.
For example, for an animal, it is conceivable that there may be a drawing, a photograph of the living animal, a photograph of the animal naturalized or skull. If the drawing wins the label, and a photo comes he will vote again and choose between drawing and photography. Both are useful and deserves a label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Myrabella's views at Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudimbrasia deyrollei.jpg. I think any of the images you list could be mainscope or subscope nominations. In the Accipiter madagascariensis discussion, Taxocat objected to the subscope "drawing" with the mainscope unfilled.[1] Often, the first image to be nominated will be a mainscope nomination, but the guidelines do not require that. The guidelines only require that the scope be not too wide and not too narrow. I agree that we should encourage reviewers to apply the rules flexibly. In the past, I've been criticized for being too rigid (Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_6#Is_VIC_dying.3F). I am trying to be more flexible. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No, there must have restrictions, would be perfectly unreasonable to change the rules. I just want to say that there are fields of application where precise, limitations of scope, we would be able to promote, drawing and photography without opposing them. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Good evening everybody.
regarding the question of scopes of drawings in VIC, I understand that some of you think that my oppositions are "unfair". I'm sorry for that, it was not my intention to be unfair. I oppose, because I think the scope is not good in these cases. Many reviewers do oppose because of a disagreement about the scope, that is only what I did here.
I like these drawings very much, then I think they deserve a "drawing" subscope.
Furthermore I agree with Archaeo's arguments, and I think that we do not need a change of the rules, but debates and kind discussions, nomination after nominations, because a general definition of the idea of "scope" is impossible.
I've read the discussion above, and I've really nothing to add for now. One thing: I'm very interested by the VIC page and concept, and I wish it will survive and be more interesting for many "Commoners". Souplesse et pragmatisme, trop de règlement tue le règlement. Not too many rules, please.
By the way, another great "Thank You" to MrPanyGoff for his great job.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Bonsoir, tout le monde; I'm missing something because I don't see that it is important whether the artwork scope be "drawing/artwork" or not. If a photograph comes along later, it can be nominated either in mainscope or subscope "photograph". If a drawing in mainscope is demoted, that drawing may subsequently be nominated in subscope "drawings/artwork". Myrabella seems to think the same.[2] Consequently, I'm likely to support artwork nominations with an automatic statement that I support either mainscope or "drawing/artwork" subscope.
Under the current rules, the primary criterion for scope is that it not be too narrow or too broad. "There will be conflict between the drawings and photographs" (Archaeodontosaurus' words) is not listed as a criterion. That is why I thought you and s/he wished to change the rules. Yes, MrPanyGoff's work is laudable. Merci, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • People you are flattering me ;) Anyway, I think the matter of the scopes is not so complicated just we should write down the logical variants which can be applied and this will solve the problem once and for all. As for the drawing/photo dispute for now it is usual we to use drawings, paintings or sculptures as a substitution (only) of a photograph in the People topics when we have no good photo or the person has lived before the invention of the photography. The other thing is when we consider the drawing not so much as a illustration of somebody but as a piece of art then it goes in a topic Works of art as A Portrait of S'one by S'one. I think these are the variants considering the people. Is there something different in the species scopes?--MrPanyGoff 10:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • For biota, useful, high-quality, {{PD-old}} artwork exists for many species. Often, these illustrate notable or distinguishing features better than modern photographs, e.g., Category:The Birds of America. Photographs may depict colors accurately and have more resolution. Consequently, it is often difficult to say that a photograph is more valued than artwork of similar quality. Generally, both should be recognized, in my opinion. Complicating matters more, fine art may have an identifiable species as a subject and occasionally artwork illustrating biota may be considered fine art. These are uncommon. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

10 million files

Commons is approaching 10 million files, and should get there in within the week. There's a draft release in progress at Commons:Press releases/10M. I think it would be appropriate for some description of VI, and its work, to be there.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumable wrong ID of the current VI for Pieris rapae

File:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg is the current VI for the scope Pieris rapae but its category has been changed since its promotion and it is now classified in Category:Pieris brassicae. According to Taxocat, the extend of the black patch on the top of the upper wings would indeed indicate this specimen to be a Pieris brassicae rather than a Pieris rapae. In agreement with the author, Alvesgaspar, I propose the following actions: amendment of the description; removal of the VI seal on the file; removal the links to this file in VI galleries; and some words added on the review page to explain the move. A previous case here. I will deal with it tomorrow if nobody opposes. --Myrabella (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


I consider to start a general rearrangement of the topic galleries so that the accumulation of more and more images (especially in some topics) to be under control and properly presented. It will be based on the existed style but new more accurate subtopics will be created. I plan to do this step by step and simultaneously I will inform the community here for every operation. I would like just a little help with the VI categorization tool at the beginning. What do you think about this initiative? I hope that this won't cause a technical problem.--MrPanyGoff 13:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that it will need to adapt VICbot, which does automatic tasks related to VICs and VIs. Question asked to User:Eusebius. If we change things, I would like a presentation silmilar to QI page, with a sample of 4 images and a link "more..." for each gallery. --Myrabella (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just two remarks: Any modification in the galleries should be translated into MediaWiki:VIhelper.js: the list at the beginning of the script must stricly fit the structure of the galleries. If it is done properly, VICbot and Eusebot should follow, since the structure is not hard-coded for them (or my memory really fails me). Second point, please keep in mind that the creation of the gallery structure occurred after very lengthy and in-depth discussions, so be sure you reach consensus before updating the structure (and do it only after several days of inactivity regarding a point of the debate). I'm not worried though. The first update proposal looks interesting to me. However, I'm afraid I won't have time to participate in the debate, but please do ping me if there is a technical issue (other than writing into the MediaWiki namespace, I don't have these rights anymore). --Eusebius (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • So, as I understand there is no technical problem if the new galleries are designed and placed strictly in the structure of the existing "tree". Since I don't mean to redesign the philosophy of the structure but only to tidy it up, so on this matter in-depth debate is not needed, imo. Just the tree needs upgrade with new branches. Of course, I will announce each of the additions, as I stated above, and I'll wait for a couple of days. That's why I'm going to do it step by step. This will help we to avoid long debate which only stops the evolution and at the same time all will be perfectly clear and coordinated. The wish of Myrabella concerns the appearance and is a matter of another discussion, imo;)--MrPanyGoff 18:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, thank you Eusebius! So let's talk topics then :-) I think a gallery about Antiquity is an attractive idea. It would allow to gather sparse images, and we'd see in a wink that we have at least five VIs about different places in Petra, Jordan—for the moment. Nevertheless, it would be the first gallery by time period ever created for VIs, so let's think a bit about it. If we create the topic "Antiquity" as a sub-galery of Buildings, should we classify those items in it?

These are some first thoughts, mainly to test about MrPanyGoff's proposition consistency. But be sure I find it very interesting indeed! --Myrabella (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC) --Myrabella (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. As I see you can read my thoughts :) (well, at least 90% of them). But before to continue with this I'll write some more words for clarification.--MrPanyGoff 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
  • For now I consider about 20 new galleries in the most crowded topics. All of them consistent with the main structure. I'm going to suggest them one by one in a 4-5 days period so that we can absorb the information quietly.--MrPanyGoff 23:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


I think about it strongly as a part of a topic Places/Buildings. There are about 35 Valued images related to it so far. The gallery is planned to include images of remains in the scopes which refer to: Prehistory, Classical antiquity, Ancient Near East, Ancient Iran (Persia), Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Late Antiquity, African Antiquity, Far East Antiquity... Also considering the topic as a place for old civilizations I think that here we should include Pre-Columbian era/Mesoamerica. In the future when the number of photographs increase, logically all the mentioned periods and civilizations can be subtopics of Antiquity.--MrPanyGoff 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the main structure - sculptures and other objects from these periods are to be placed in Works of Art topic. In the future, when the category Works of Art accumulate more images, we can create gallery Antiquities which is a term for objects from Antiquity.--MrPanyGoff 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Buildings and structures originating from the Antiquity but considerably reconstructed and upgraded in later times are not to be placed in this gallery. Ruins of castles originating from High Middle Ages or later as well as abandoned palaces and abbeys from the High Middle Ages are also not to be placed here.--MrPanyGoff 23:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
We shouldn't consider Prehistory as a part of Antiquity, even in a gallery about buildings. It would be confusing and misleading. In the usual acception, Antiquity is the begin of recorded human history; Prehistory is the period before written history. Joining the two periods in a single "Antiquity" topic would be antinomic. --Myrabella (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, considering your opinion and the one of Walter Siegmund below, I see that all you understand the term Antiquity too literal as refering only to a specific time. The connotation I mean is old times, old cultures, old civilizations that no longer exist. OK then, I'm going to accept the suggestion of Walter Siegmund for "Ruins" as a title of this subgallery just give me opinions Ruins or Remains - which one is better? But I stand on position that ruins of structures from later times and later cultures as a whole should not be placed there.--MrPanyGoff 10:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
MrPanyGoff, "Antiquity" doesn't seem to be a well-defined term. Should I worry? I don't think most users would expect to find Pre-Columbian structures in this category. Most Pre-Columbian structures date to the Middle Ages. Would "Ruins" be more apt? Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I accept the suggestion (see above) but "Ruins" or "Remains" - which one?--MrPanyGoff 10:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC) As if for me, "Remains" is better because I accept all the ruins, excavation sites and pyramids as either "Remains" or "Ruins" but somehow sites as Stonehenge for instance is only "Remains" for me not "Ruins".--MrPanyGoff 10:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  Oppose I don't. "Ruins" refers to Buildings by condition. If the new topic is "Ruins" or "Remains", it will include images of antique remains, but also of medieval castles in ruins, like File:Urquhart Castle distance 2.jpg or File:Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4-k.jpg, for the moment sorted in Commons:Valued images by topic/Places/Buildings/Castles, palaces and fortresses. "Ruins" might be used for File:Broken menhir edit.jpg but not for File:Menhir du Champ Dolent.jpg. "Remains" is somewhat vague. Would you classify that tower, now in Places/Buildings/Skyscrapers and towers in a "Remains" gallery (the :en:WP article says "This tower is one of the few remaining within the city walls")? Do you really think it would be better and give a more accurate information to the user? I tend to think that this new gallery could quickly become a mess of many things :-) As for me, I wouldn't drop the idea of an "Antiquity" gallery so hastily. Note that the en:WP article on Ancient history considers prominent civilizations on several continents. Could be narrowed to Classical antiquity in order to restrict it to the Greco-Roman world. --Myrabella (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are good points, Myrabella. "Classical antiquity" addresses my concern regarding vagueness. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Answers to all these questions are given above twice. The phrase: " of the few remaining within the city walls" has nothing to do with the term "Remains". Anyway, to sum up, I think that this dispute boils down simply to the name of the gallery. Are you agree with the scope (not the name) of the gallery? Moreover, the mentioned by Myrabella table (prominent civilizations) is exactly from the article that unify my ideas - Ancient history. Can I suggest some more variants of the name: Ancient History Remains or rather Ancient Cultures Remains. The gallery called "Classical antiquity" is a subgallery of the discussed here the same as "Pre-Columbian Americas" and "Prehistory". These should be created after the accumulation of more images (probably after one year). So, let's finalize the naming ;) --MrPanyGoff 11:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
'Ancient History Remains' excudes Prehistory, see above. I'd rather prefer Ancient Cultures Remains for the wider scope you are proposing. 'Remains' is better than 'Ruins' here: for instance, the Pantheon in Rome can be seen as Ancient Roman remains, but it is certainly not as a ruin. PS: though 'Ancient Cultures Remains' make me think of Lovecraft ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that we already have here some agreement. So I'm very satisfied with the name - Ancient Cultures Remains. Let's see if the others support it.--MrPanyGoff 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Streets and Squares

The second new subgallery I think about is Streets and Squares placed in a topic Places/Cities and Towns/Streets and Squares. I think that it is a high time these specific views to be differentiated from the general town views. Currently we have about 25 images relating to this topic but scattered. I think that we should include here the images representing town parks and gardens as being also a sub-structures of the town "fabric" the same as the squares.--MrPanyGoff 11:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

  Support OK to me. May be to be worded as "Streets, squares and parks" then. --Myrabella (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "Streets, Squares and Parks" is good. Just one more time, as a subgallery of Cities and Towns, it includes only Town Parks and Gardens not the National Parks which are outside the city limits.--MrPanyGoff 11:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
'urban parks' instead of 'parks' then, to avoid future mix-ups? --Myrabella (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think parks are a distinct category of photography, so I would prefer Streets and squares as originally proposed as one category and maybe Parks and gardens as a separate one. In particular I would not mix in gardens which can be private spaces with streets. --ELEKHHT 09:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Next in line for rearrangement which I suggest is the section "People/Artists" more so I think we have emergency there. The section has increased significantly and currently it is a real mess with variety of people. So it is a high time to be divided into subgalleries. Firstly, I wonder if the new galleries should be subscopes of "Artists" (People/Artists/New one) or they should substitute the existing topic and then respectively we are going to use "Artists" only for painters, sculptors and cartoonists.

The suggested new galleries logically are:

  • Artists and Architects (or "Architects, Painters, Sculptors and Cartoonists" see above)
  • Musicians, Singers and Composers
  • Performing arts artists (actors, dancers, directors)
  • Writers

Opinions?--MrPanyGoff 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ad hoc nominating

I think sometimes is better to think twice before nominate some scope, MrPanny escpecially, since often fotos are poor quality and its better to wait some time to get some better than to go Ad hoc nominating-voting. --Mile (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • This label is given a temporary basis. Once a better image appears she is entitled to take that label. It is fortunate that MrPanyGoff please animate this label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

VICbot problems

There is something wrong with the automatic removal by VICbot. These three promotions (1, 2, 3) are somehow blocked.--MrPanyGoff 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are again 2 blocked nominations. Yann (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Scope for churches

Currently, Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings says: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional...". Review discussions, e.g., Commons:Valued image candidates/Protestant Church Kleinkems, suggest that it may be appropriate to review this criterion. en:WP:N and its counterparts (e.g., de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien) on sister projects may provide helpful background for this discussion. ---Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The buildings scope does not preclude churches from being VI. It is the onus probandi of the nominator to argue relevance for a scope (as it is for every scope). There are many examples of scopes that could be perceived as being too narrow. E.g. not every ship warrants a scope, for some a type of ship would be the lowest acceptable scope (see the current Maersk nomination). A similar reasoning could be argued for subspecies, where in general the species level could be the lowest allowable scope. With thorough argumentation exceptions should be possible. W.S. 17:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • The church images I nominate are all part of a big (not yet completed) project I am tracking now since over a year in which I write and illustrate articles to all churches of the Landkreis Lörrach (Landkreis = an administrative district in Germany): see here [3]. All churches have encyclopaedic relevance according to the de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien of the germany speaking wikipedia which is much more rigorous than en.wikipedia. In general: buildings are relevant when there is a reputable literature that describes the building. In case of the churches of Landkreis Lörrach this is so. And Wetenschatje should finally answer why every arthropod is relevant but not every church, especially because every church is a landmark. W.S. pretends that I would nominate every little electricity hut. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC)I am inclined to think we should fairly open to many and narrow scopes as long as they are potentially useful for current and future Wikimedia projects or has educational and informational value for outside use. For instance, one can easily envision some informative project wanting to compile information and photos for all churches in a certain region, country, of a certain type, etc. As a matter of fact I know there has been an initiative on the Danish Wikipedia for getting photos of all churches in Denmark, so it is certainly in scope and relevant. Thus, if a VI badge can be a catalyst for motivating creators to find and document all this diversity, I think it is fine.
I have always been thinking that there can be "very many VIs". Better to have a photo of a new church that yet another mediocre one of Notre Dame. Of course getting a better one of Notre Dame than we already have is also a goal, but just not so easy. When we originally discussed scopes and how narrow they could be, we often spoke about what was visually distinct. That different scopes, which were not visually distinct, were too narrow. This is what has led to the principle that normally taxon scopes are not finer than the species level, although in some cases subspecies are visually distinct, as well as different cultivars of, e.g., fruit and vegetables. So following this principle I would say that every church could have its own scope as long as it is visually distinct. Does that mean that every church could also have it interior and exterior subscopes? Hmmm, well, often the interiors would be visually distinct as well, and one could argue it was OK, on the other hand we also need to draw a line some place. For instance every tree looks visually distinct, yet it is not relevant to have a scope for each tree, as it is the general characteristics of a tree of a given species, which is relevant for the scope. The difference between the trees and the churches is that there is apparently a interest among some to have a repository of all churches, but not all (individual) trees. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A slight sidetrack, but related and mentioned here: Concerning ships and the current Mærsk ship nomination, I think the appropriate scope granularity is at the ship class level (or equivalent). For instance Mærsk E class container ships as the scope. Although individual ships is the class have visual differences — most apparent their visually seens name, I think that all ships in the class are so similar, that more narrow scopes are irrelevant. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Slaunger and I regret that his schedule did not allow him to be more with us in VI.   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Slaunger too. We all know that he is obviously a wise man. The idea of "visually distinct" is very interesting. I think that we cannot write a clear and "closed" rule for the definition of a "scope" in general, because it is simply impossible. But the rule we have for churches is fine in my opinion, even if exceptions are possible. Exceptions are always possible. This is the job of the nominator to convince reviewers that the pictures he/she nominates is "distinct" enough to deserve a scope. I'm sorry to say that in the present case (the Landkreis Lörrach churches) I'm not convinced, but I understand very well that others (Mr PanyGoff for one of them) can have another opinion. If the one supported by Mr PanyGoff is labelled/promoted, it will not be a scandal.
All of this is subjective and human, and if not, let's promote pictures by a Bot !! I've recently declined a nomination of the photo of a swedish woman because of lack of quality, but it is only my opinion and I hope a following discussion...
I just beg for more kindness, less testosterone, more helpful comments, softness and own-humility, no sarcasms nor aggressivity as we can find in the FPC page, for instance. Words (especially for non native english speakers) are dangerous and may hurt. Some people (me first!) are like gunpowder, and are able to explose very quickly, no need to provoke them, even if it is funny sometimes !--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! and to quote my own closing statement above:"With thorough argumentation exceptions should be possible.". And that should be true for every scope. W.S. 10:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy that someone dares to question this rule. I want to partition my argument in 3 parts:
  1. I fully understand the reasons of the creators of the original guidelines for the restriction. I imagine a typical German suburban settlement, created after WW2 to accomodate refugees, with thouroughly planned residential areas: Infrastructure for each neighbourhood included a butcher, a hairdresser, an evangelic church and a catholic church, all located at the local central square. Unplanned and at less prominent places, there appeared venues of Methodists, Newapostolics, Jehowah's Witnesses, and of some unorganized pietistic and pentecostal congregations. I had the personal project to document those in my town for our CityWiki, but I felt that they're not relevant for Wikipedia, not even for uploading, and less for VI.
  2. But is the current restriction "only cathedrals" good? It looks well-defined, btu i fact it isn't. The term "cathedral" must be taken from the terminology of some christian denomination. But from which? Without this information, it isn't as well-defined as it is being used by some reviewers.
    1. I think the term is mostly known from the roman-catholic church. But in roman-catholic context, "only cathedrals" is blatant nonsense. Think of the Basilica Papale di San Pietro in Vaticano. Not a cathedral. The Pope's home cathedral is St.John Lateran. St.Peter will likely pass secondary criteria based on architecture etc. But the central church of the world-wide roman-catholic church fails the primary catholic-based relevance criterion for churches. Nonsense. If roman-catholic terminology is defining, the criterion must read "basilicas and cathedrals" (basilica not the architectural style, but the liturgical rank assigned by roman-catholic church to those of its churches which are very important, but not the seat of a bishop and therefore not a cathedral).
    2. Or was the criterion creator from slavic, orthodox origin? Did he have собор in mind? That would make more sense. Собор is often translated as cathedral, but it's a wider term, used for the main church of a town, or of a monastery, etc., regardless of the assigned staff. Not every собор is a кафедральный собор.
    3. Or was he German, where there are three different words Kathedrale, Dom, Münster, which all translate to cathedral, but all can mean something like cathedral, or something like собор, or don't have specific meaning, depending on which denomination in which region is using them? So he might have been happy that it's easy to translate his intention into one English word, but unaware that this causes confusion.
  3. But do we need such a pre-defined, strictly-defined criterion at all? Which isn't really well-defined yet? And which in consequence needs many exceptions that aren't well-defined anyway? Few other fields have such a well-defined criterion. We had theatres and museums promoted, without discussing their relevance. Just being a theatre or museum building seems to be enough. There is no defined criterion for town halls, or library buildings, or hotels, of whatever occurs with similar frequency as churches.
  4. And is the criterion for churches really being applied? I think it isn't. We had a series of Venice churches. None of them a cathedral, and none of them with an explanation of their relevance. Being in Venice seems enough for minor, not very old churches to be promoted without question, while older chuches from elsewhere were opposed.
  5. Summary: I think the current cathedral criterion is useless at the moment. It needs to be at least refined (defining the cathedral definition being used), but additionally amended (adding e.g. age as proof of relevance), or just deleted. (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I am happy too, and I rather agree. To me, an important sentence of the guideline is :"Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." (see Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings). Some past reviews placed emphasis on the historical/architectural significance of the building ("simple" church or other type of building) which could justify a scope, when it was labelled as a "Monument historique" or a "National Historic Landmark" or a "Listed building" or listed in any similar heritage directory. In addition, note that we have promoted a lot of railway stations without without batting an eyelid about their encyclopedic relevance. --Myrabella (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I suggest adding something like the following near the beginning of COM:VIS, perhaps in the section headed "Not too narrow...". I think these are implicit criteria that are follow by many reviewers, but it may be helpful to make them explicit. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"In most cases, a scope that is the topic of one or more significant articles in our sister projects is broad enough as long as those articles are not largely the work of one or two individuals. A scope with more than a few occurrences in a search of the scholarly literature (e.g., Google Scholar) is unlikely to be judged too narrow is normally considered acceptable.

I find the formulation in proposed addition too complicated and hard to understand. I have read the second sentence several times and I am still not sure I understand what it means. I think the negation in "unlikely" is the root cause for some of my confusion. Is "unlikely to be judged too narrow" equivalent with "is normally considered acceptable"? --Slaunger (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Your phrasing is better. Thank you. But please see below for a complete rewrite. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Second version: A scope is usually broad enough if it is the topic of one or more articles in our sister projects, or occurs more than a few times in a search of the scholarly literature (e.g., Google Scholar). Articles written by mostly by the nominator may not be counted. Please see Notability (and interlanguage links therein) for a detailed discussion of topic notability criteria.

Yes, if this restriction applies to living (and extinct) species scopes too. It sometimes happens that a species chosen as a scope for a VI hasn't an article on its own in Wikipedia in any language, and sometimes not even an entry in Wikispecies. On the other hand, I guess that every species has echoes in Google Scholar... --Myrabella (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not in favor of extending this rule to biology. Any image of a species must be eligible for the label VI. Under the guise that the gallery or category gives the taxonomy (this is experimental and works well). COMMONS can be an incentive to the item being made ​​in Wikimedia. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
As Myrabella discusses above, I think that species of biota satisfy the criteria I suggested. Each species is named and described in the scholarly literature. To validate a species name, it is necessary to refer to the literature. If that literature exists, then it qualifies as a scope. We might include biological species explicitly, but I think it is unnecessary. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do with obvious unfounded votes?


User:Wetenschatje seems to be presently very interested in my picture candidates respectively he is very interested to vote with a contra wherever he seems a chance that his argument does not seem to implausible. Nevertheless it is very weird to give a contra because of failing geotag which is simply to fix: Commons:Valued image candidates/Pride of Baltimore II. My question: can such votes be striked out corresponding the VIC rules? Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

For the particular case the vote is IMO formally justified. And no, it cannot and should not be striked out as "obvious unfounded". With the exception of new nominators, I would consider it part of the nominator homework prior to nomination to make sure the criteria were met. Personally, I would not oppose a nomination due to missing geocode right away, but just place a comment with a request to fix it, especially for newcomers to VI. But it is nowhere stated that one has to do that. In this case, I would just recommend fixing it, and add a note about that on the nomination page. I am sure W.S has every page he edits on his watchlist and that he will then reconsider the particular vote. --Slaunger (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Slaunger. Please remember that we often learn more from our critics than our admirers. COM:MELLOW may be helpful as well. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The behaviour of Wetenschatje has nothing in common with constructive critics but is put up provocation. Thank you for your attention. He striked already his unspeakable contra himself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conditional oppose: VIF template

Hello, To adress the question raised by W.S. in that review ("Could we add a suspended template for such cases, where promotion is normally expected but some (minor) requirements are still to be fulfilled?"), I point out to reviewers the existence of the Template:VIF (="Valued if"), which can be useful in such cases. An example of use here (a bit adapted). --Myrabella (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of that template, but some users take exception to anything that smells like oppose. A suspension template would be less stern yet temporarily prevent the promotion of candidate. One could even envision a time limit on such a suspension template which automatically reverts to an oppose after say 20 days. W.S. 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It is really no need to make mountains out of molehills and to start a more or less big formalization process for bagatelle. My suggestion: If a VI candidate fail because there are missing preconditions than you can commend this to correct it if it is correctable. Are the preconditions still missing 24 hours after the advice was made you can turn your comment into a conditional contra. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This proposition sounds rather reasonable to me.   Request as a first step; conditional contra as the second one. --Myrabella (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So, 3/3 of my horse VICs finished undecided

Are people in here only used to reviewing images of buildings, plants, and insects? I understand that horse breeds are a different thing, but that's the reason I include detailed reasoning with each VIC. I saw nearly all other contemporary VICs reviewed sooner or later, what can I do to encourage people to review horse related ones? Pitke (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I review VIC when I have at least a minimal knowledge of the subject, and when I have time (not so often these days). I have obsolutely no idea about horse breeds, so sorry. Yann (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand well, I'm the same to be frank :/ Buildings are easy that way. Would it help if there was an adequate Wikipedia article to refer to for what the breed is supposed to be like? Pitke (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course yes, but I can't assure that I will review your VIC. Yann (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It's reassuring to hear in any case, thanks. Pitke (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The population of reviewers and their interests change from month to month. With summer (northern hemisphere) ending, more will be active. So, renominate your images in a week or two. In the meantime, you can help by reviewing other images. That will make it more likely that someone will review yours. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. I was just surprised to see so many other noms processed so swiftly. I'll be back. Thanks. Pitke (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Visually indistinguishable scopes

This is prompted by review comments on a recent nomination, Commons:Valued image candidates/Héron garde-bœufs MHNT.jpg. Guidance is unclear. Commons:Valued image scope says "scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository. I think "''[[scientific name]]'' (vernacular name), eggs" is useful. Most editors would prefer to illustrate an article with a photograph of the egg of the article topic, rather than that of another species that is visually indistinguishable. This is akin to the museum practice of clearly identifying replicas of objects even when the appearance is identical to the original. On the other hand, scope says, "If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level." This suggests that my analysis above is not correct. Commons:Valued images says, “Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects." Its purpose is to "identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality." I tend to support visually indistinguishable nominations if I have confidence that the identification is accurate and the other criteria are well-satisfied. I think such images further the goals of VI. Also, I'm mindful of the words of Jebulon, who argued some time ago, that excessive concern over the choice of scope may discourage contributors. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

    • ...And I'm still discouraged, even if I've in my 'collection' some obvious VI. I hesitate to nominate...--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for introducing this debate, I did not dare run it, because my English is miserable. I just want raport fact. In the Project Phoebus I poured in COMMONS, 27 images of eggs. They are used on 540 pages of various projects. I myself place them in these projects. I watch these pages every day. At the moment there is no page that I refused a ilustration of an egg. I think this approach is positive. One last point, shoot and place egg is not very rewarding work ... I prefer the butterfly:)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Two potential VI for the same scope

Hello, I've just stopped the promotion of Commons:Valued image candidates/Jagadguru Rambhadracharya2.jpg because there is already a VI for that scope: Commons:Valued image candidates/Jagadguru Rambhadracharya.jpg => I've asked the nominator to open a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think your actions are consistent with guidelines and practice. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, an issue occured in the MVR nomination (status of both images not changed to "discussed, I guess) so now there are two images with the VI seal for the same scope: the most recent one, File:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya2.jpg and the first VI, File:Jagadguru Rambhadracharya.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bot stuck?


It seems the bot is stuck for the last 10 days. What's going on? Yann (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

  • This is not the first time it happened this summer. I have no idea. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
    • More than half of the page is filled up with closed VIC. It is becoming cumbersome. Yann (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
      • How about we do it manually? Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, it seems we will have too. Unfortunately, I am leaving today for 3 weeks, so I won't have time myself. Yann (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Delisting a wrong valued image ?

Hello everybody,

I'm afraid this picture was wrongly named, nominated, reviewed and promotted, because it is not a wisent's skull, but an african buffalo's one (Syncerus caffer, instead of Bison bonasus). I'm sorry, it is my mistake (and the mistake of the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris, because of the wrong license plate lol). I've asked for a "rename" of the file (now done), but it should be delisted as VI in this wrong scope (and in archives too) IMO. But I don't know how to correct such material errors. Could somebody help ? Thank you very much.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I have done what is needed. I hope final cleanup will be done automatically by the bot on the next run. --Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Ô Slaunger-the-Wise !--Jebulon (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The bot is dead... Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
But the wrong VI is now delisted...--Jebulon (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Please enlighten Slaunger-the-incompetent, what do you mean when you say that now the wrong VI is delisted??? I just rechecked what I did and it appears OK to me. (A link would be helpful) --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The picture with the wrong name is now delisted as VI (the label disapeared). I've re-nominated yesterday evening the same picture, with his corrected name, in the VIC page, because I think it is the best picture in the scope.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but I think that is OK. Once the bot can process the candidates page again (I see it has been promoted under the new scope), it will (should) get a new {{VI}} template with the correct scope filled in. --Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
VICBot running again. I believe the issue is fixed? --Slaunger (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Old VI candidates still not removed from list

Is it possible for the bot to remove the entries from October, or do they need to be manually archived ? Thanks. --Claritas (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This should be done manually. but I do not know the procedure. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Seems that the page is so overfilled that the last three entries do not even appear, or maybe there is another issue. --ELEKHHT 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
There are manual instructions "hidden" in Commons:Valued image closure. I think they are still valid, but currently commented out. The reason for the last entries not appearing is because the number of nominations has exceded the maximum number of candidates supported in the template which encapsulated the nominations. Only have little time myself to actually help with the work, sorry--Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I just went through the manual procedure for a promoted candidate. It was quite simple, except the notification step on the user talk page, which is tedious. I propose skipping those now to get the process going again. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
For declined candidates it is particularly simple, as they can just be removed from the list. --Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be resolved now, as the bot is working again. --Dschwen (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who repaired the bot, but I would like to congratulate him and thank him very much.--Jebulon (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ;-), and you are welcome. --Dschwen (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
yes the year 2012 starts well! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On the organization of highlighted (FP/QI/VI) media in Commons main category structure

I have started a discussion regarding some thoughts about getting a better integration and display of FP/QI/VIs in the main category structure at Commons:Village pump#Highlighted content in main category structure. Feel free to join the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a gallery a requisitive for a VI?


In Commons:Valued image candidates/Langur monkey, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg, Wetenschatje opposes my nomination because there is no gallery for this scope. AFAIK this is not a criteria for oppositing a VIC. Comments? Yann (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

  • A gallery is very useful. It is strongly advised to do so. We are all volunteers. we will not create a movement-friendly Gallery, if we sanction their absence. It can not be a negative vote for this argument. I believe in the virtues of dialogue not to sanction. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Opposes are not sanctions. They are incentives to do better. Moreover, opposes are revertible. พ.s. 11:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Very funny. Such oppositions like yours are very incentives for participating in the VI project indeed !--Jebulon (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of galleries, we have a backlog of more than 1500 VIs in Commons:Valued image candidates/tag galleries for which we should see if a fitting gallery exists in which a {{VI-tiny}} template can be added or create a relevant gallery. It was the sight of this overwhelming task, which made me start this thread (also mentioned above) about pushing information from file pages onto category pages and exposing highlighted content automatically, such that we do not have to do all this redundant and utterly boring administrative work (which nobody has done for ages anyhow). --Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think requiring a gallery is a barrier to participation. But, I've refused to review images when the scope was a subset of a large category. I'm not willing to wade through tens of images to find the ones that are in scope. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I came to this page to ask the same question. I personally have no use for galleries, but if it's to be a VI requirement, I don't care, except that it's not in the criteria. The only thing I read there currently about galleries is that "Images may optionally be added to any relevant content-related gallery" (my emphasis), which is a far cry from a requirement! cmadler (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, a gallery is not a requisite for a VIC. Please refer to Commons:Valued image scope - Extract 1, § "How to choose a scope": "Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page. If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope." Extract 2, § "Links to the scope": "You are encouraged to add relevant links in the scope, in the following way: - Try to limit yourself to one link per scope, if possible. Only the most specific part of the scope should be linked; If there is a relevant Commons gallery, link to it; If there is a relevant Commons category, link to it; Otherwise, if there is an article on the English Wikipedia, link to it; Otherwise, if there is an article on another Wikipedia, link to it; Otherwise, don't link; Try to avoid linking to a redirection page or a page with a very different title." (my emphasis) => A link to a gallery or to a category is indifferent—even more, the first extract highlight the importance of categories; a link to the scope is not even mandatory , if an appropriate gallery, category or WP article doesn't exist yet. --Myrabella (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Is a requirement in the criteria required to vote support or oppose? No. Criteria exist to set a minimum threshold which nominations have to satisfy. But even this is rarely adhered to. Suspending nominations because of lack of a gallery, is the least of issues. It is infinitely much easier to do than to invent geo-coordinates for a place or to render a topic notable enough for inclusion in VI. Do we want a VI part of a structured selection process, properly formatted and with transparent rules? Or do we collect a mishmash of valuable image without structure and sometimes with strict scopes and sometimes quickly processed because of likes/dislikes of the nominee/nominator? I'd say the former is preferable. พ.s. 07:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • About tranparent rules— here the rule is clear: a link in the scope to a gallery is not required if the relevant gallery doesn't exist (Commons:Valued image scope). On the contrary, geo-coordinates are explicitely required but exceptions (criterion 5). If you think it would be pertinent to systematize a link to a gallery, please propose a reformulation of the existing rules to make it a requirement. --Myrabella (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand what is meant with a gallery in relation to this discussion. For me a gallery is a page like CN Tower. This gallery is reasonable because Category:CN Tower consist of many subcategories like Category:Aerial photographs of the CN Tower or Category:CN Tower at night. This is overdue because of the mass of pictures are merged to be well-arranged. In my appreciation a scope is not to be equalized with a gallery because a large topic like CN Tower or Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris has so many aspects that are all combined by a gallery. We have a meaningful scope for the exterior or interior, maybe a scope for a distinguished pipe organ. So the assignment of a scope at VIC has to be with the adequate category and not with a gallery. Beside of this: we have also categories with only a few pictures in it (example: pictures of North Korea are very seldom). So there is no need to make of this ten pictures in Category:Arch of Triumph (Pyongyang) a gallery. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

    • I actually agree with that viewpoint Wlady. Sometimes a gallery is not really relevant at the lowest category level because there simply is so few images in it. Galleries makes sense, when the number of photos in a category becomes so crowded that it is worthwhile pinpoiting the highlighted content or to add some structure in another way. Galleries are also relevant at higher level categories to highlight the "leaves" as your CN tower example. Another example could be for a genus like Saxifraga, which could present the best example of each Saxifraga species. Or take for instance this VI of a prison in Oregon. To tag that in galleries I created the galleries Pendleton, Oregon and Prisons in Oregon to highlight the prison as a notable building and VI in Pendleton, and as a VI of a prison in Oregon. But these galleries only contain this single image (currently), and when I create such galleries to place a    on the file page, I wonder if it is worth the effort and if it gives real meaning. Of course, if a VI of every single prison in Oregon could be presented on the Prisons in Oregon page it would give meaning. --Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In fact the present guidelines' requisite is more flexible and user's friendly regarding this point (see my first comment in this thread) and personnaly I think it doesn't need to be harden. --Myrabella (talk) 08:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is all talk beside the issue. I will explain once again. When a gallery is linked in the scope, the bot will indicate (with a   ) which image of that scope is the most valuable in our opinion. When there is no such link the bot will not indicate anything and it will be near impossible for the casual user who is searching for the most appropriate (valuable) picture to illustrate his/her article, to find the VI (especially in larger categories). In other words, when there are no galleries, we are engaging in an elaborate vanity project here on commons, with little of no visibility on other wikis. If galleries are there, then the vanity bit drops instantaneously. พ.s. 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We know that. So the problem is in the bot, not the galleries. I fully agree with Taxiarchos228 and Myrabella. And disagree with ws. Could somebody improve the bot ? --Jebulon (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Knowing and understanding are two different things. If you improve the bot, I will concur. But tell me how a bot is going to add VI indication to a non-existing gallery? พ.s. 08:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree, W.S. a bot operates after rules and it is difficult to set up rules for this which can be implemented in a bot. On the other hand it is often at higher levels tagging in galleries is the most relevant. For instance, one of the first VIs was of a Saxifraga nivalis for which there is a gallery containing just two images, og which one is tagged. This gallery has limited value as there are only five photos in Category:Saxifraga nivalis. The gallery at the genus level, Saxifraga is more interesting, as here a single example is shown of each species and this example should be the VI if there is one. But there would never be a link to this gallery from the scope as this would link to the species gallery. And I see no way a bot could automate that such that it would work in all cases as it is not every super-category gallery, which should contain a VI-tagged image.
        • I see also an other question: is an indication of a FP, VI or QI really desired? In many cases illustrating a topic does not align obligatory to mentioned pictures. Indicating a picture in a gallery is a kind of paternalism. Is a user that is searching a picture really not able to find the best because there is missing a  ,   or  ? In my opinion it is the liability of the creator of a commons gallery to present the best pictures and refresh it from time to time. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes, sometimes it is not the FP, QI, or VI you are after for a specific application, but I find the tags useful as it is hard to judge the value of the small thumbnail images in a gallery without opening the files pages to get better resolution, and here the tags can help the user in finding what he wants faster. --Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, automatic tag of VIs in galleries is a plus. On the negative side, galleries need more manual maintenance, are quickly outdated, and can be made up in a quite subjective way (often, existing galleries in Commons have been created some years ago and filled with one user's images). Slanger's idea above would be more efficient if it could be set up. But it isn't now, so please widen the discussion with concrete propositions of new writed rules for the different options (1) link to a gallery only; (2) link to a category only—challenging (3) keeping the current rule. --Myrabella (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the current rule should be maintained, but I would propose that if the bot cannot find a suitable gallery link in the scope, the notification message on the user talk page should contain a special notice urging the creator to add the {{VI-tiny}} template to relevant gallery/ies and/or create new galleries if no suitable ones exist already. It appears that most VI nominators are not aware of this postprocessing step. In that way we could better help each other lift the burden of highlighting the VIs in relevant galleries. --Slaunger (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
So if I understand well, a gallery is needed only because of the automatic tag of the label ? Then, a gallery should be necessary, or useful, after the promotion, not before! It happens sometimes than a nominated picture is not promoted, and in this case, a gallery is useless. Wrong ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Neither right or wrong I think . The gallery can be made upfront presenting as objectively as possible the best material in a category, or organized with meaningful captions for better navigation to help the reviewer in his assessment. If promoted and the gallery is scope-linked, the bot then does the rest of the job tagging it. However, if there are only two photos in a category this does not really make sense IMO to do beforehand. Here doing it after promotion seems more sensible. The nominator could be reminded in the promotion message to do the tagging him/herself if the bot did not manage. --Slaunger (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
and what about sub-categories ? Do you know the Category:Pont Alexandre III, and the sub-Category:Quality images of Pont Alexandre III ? I'm nor the author neither the creator, but I think the idea is not so bad, even for VI, or FP. --Jebulon (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, maybe this makes sense for QIs and FPS to have subcategories, although seldomly as detailed as in your example. But for VIs as a subcat to the scope category I do not think it would make much sense, as it would only contain one image... --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WS changed today (3 feb.) all the nominator's scopes related to categories and not to galleries, because he has decided this alone !! Now we have red links !! Does he have the right to do so ? Is it normal ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not normal, it is abusive. Yann (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is normal. Red links are part and parcel of wiki projects. They are supposed to invite users to resolve them. It shows what parts are missing. It is abusive not allow red links. It is abusive to stop progress. พ.s. 11:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Not "progress", but "YOUR OPINION about progress". Please stop this.--Jebulon (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I blocked Wetenschatje for 3 days after his edit warring on Angelus' nomination. I hope he will come back with a better mood. Yann (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
better mood ? No chance...--Jebulon (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, W.S., that red links are a natural part of wiki projects and an invitation to resolve them. However, I do not agree that the up front creation of galleries for the lowest level leaf in every category always makes sense. If the category only contains a few photos, the amount of redundant work implied by making a separate gallery page is really not worth the effort. Users will now have to look two places for the information about the same topic. As time passses, the gallery will often not be maintained. And how about the interwiki links? Should they point to the gallery or the category? I like the new idea proposed by Rocket000: That for few image categories the gallery page is redirected to the category page, which in itself can have a gallery at the top with highlighted content, like VIs, QIs, and FPs. For bio-images this has the advantage that we avoid maintenance of duplicated templates, like taxonavigation templates. To have the information duplicated at the lowest detail is a symptom of a broken system. Often the galleries make more sense when moving a level up, like a genus gallery presenting the VIs of all underlying species. However, the genus gallery should not be directly linked to from the VIC scope, obviously. Don't you agree? --Slaunger (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you propose, Kim. They've long since spoiled your project, together with all the back scratchers. When we don't agree with each other we run to the easiest admin and have the one you don't agree with blocked! What a nice place commons has become with Jebulons (you are the worst you know), Taxiarchoses and Yanns running wild. Long live tolerance. I used to block users for blatant vandalism. Now vandals make out the rule. Let the vanity circus rule. W.S is no more.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetenschatje (talk • contribs)
Hans, I would be saddened not to have you around. The blocking admin reconsidered his involvement and lifted the block quite fast. All makes mistakes. I also recall a few times where your use of the admin tools were questionable. On the other hand, you have been abrasive to work with in your Mr. Hyde-like role as W.S. The community is against your proposition to have the creation of galleries as a prerequisite. I believe it has been discussed quite thoroughly and seriously, by e.g., Myrabella. I have tried to argue above as well that it does not always make sense. I have not heard you provide any counter-arguments?
Ignoring this, your edits to nominated scopes afterwards are POINTy or reflect a high degree of stubborness, which you know very well, and they do not stimulate a colleguial atmosphere. The edits are probably also blockable by a non-involved admin as they can be considered disruptive and done on purpose. I was just seeing that we were getting some reasonable softening up of the two poles in the discussion. But now the stand-points are reset to their opposing positions. What a shame.
Sometimes, if you want to stay in a community, you have to make compromises.
Like, I still fundamentally disagree strongly, with the community insisting on categorization at the lowest level (file pages). For me, the important thing would be that file pages are organized, and a gallery can better be organized than a category. Having both is redundant and a symptom of a broken system IMO. Yet, I have accepted it (under protest) and abide to the guidelines. Of course, if the guidelines are so far away from your own values, there is also an option to quit participating in the Community.
I just miss the Dr. Jekyll-like Lycaon (with a an occasional Mr. Hyde edge). I wish he would come back  .
VI is by the way not my project. I initiated it with the excellent help of several very good and enthusiatic Commons friends, you being one of the most important. The project has has its ups and downs, but a series of good and well-meaning editors has taken resposibility and ownership along the way. --Slaunger (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
One more time a miffed lament of Wetenschatje. Even his closing words are based in his typical aggressive impudence. I never scratched someones back here. Quite contrary to his thesis Jebulon and I are more often not the same opinion. With Yann I have only very small point of contact. So where is the back scratching? His lacking comprehension that the majority is against his gallery-proposition did not ward him to force his aspect in running VIC is an example of his understanding what tolerance is. Big show, Wetenschatje. Ridiculous! --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 7".