Open main menu

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 9

Valued image sets?

What happened to these? I have a set: en:Urania's_Mirror#Gallery, which has been the main focus of my work since the start of the year, and could not be promoted individually under the most sensible category. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)*

  • You seriously expect me to nominate 32 images as Urinias Mirror Plate 1 through Plate 32? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I have done that for every set I have ever had. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then I've no objections. Jee 05:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You're wrong. I closed some of your past sets (exemple : [1], [2]—I don't put the whole sequence]. I will not do it again, for sure. --Myrabella (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My apologies, but I certainly have closed a few sets. Perhaps I'm thinking featured pictures, as there's less indication of a problem here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FP set issue is resolved. Now we consider a set as a single candidate in POTY too. Jee 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Allemagne,Aufseß-02.JPG

Hello,

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems that the application has evaporated? is it a bug because after various comments it had been validated ...
Sincerely, --Wayne77 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Gemeindeamt Aspang Markt-DSC 5972w.jpg

Seems there is a problem with the bot again. This image was promoted VI and removed from the list but got no VI seal. --P e z i (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done One of us has closed, the nomminations, a little too quickly. But it is a mistake I made in the past also. You have to start one day. Thank you all for your participation and for the good atmosphere that reigns in this label.  --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems the same happend here: Commons:Valued image candidates/Amalfi BW 2013-05-15 11-18-51 DxO.jpg, what is to do now? --91.45.65.70 15:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And there is another one (also closed a bit too early). I've tried to edit the VI seal manually; hope this is correct. --P e z i (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Perfect I see you know how to do!   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback! --P e z i (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Shell Museum, Les Sables-d'Olonne , entrance, East view

Hello,
It seems that this application is passed to the door! (hopefully for some time, I want a tracking applications ...)
Thank you in advance for regularization. Best regards. --Wayne77 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  Done tu avais un retour chariot dans le scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Merci, je vais y veiller .--Wayne77 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

MVR is not working

Hi, Maybe you saw, that we've got a problem for about 1 month with promoted images in the Most Valued Reviews. The VICbot should tag image with VI, notify nominator and remove images from candidates list. The VICbot doesn't work with MVR. Could someone fix it? --Halavar (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Valued Images

A discussion about categorization of Featured Pictures is being held here]. Because of the generality of the subject, it is expected (and desirable) that it will spread to other foruns: Quality Images, Valued Images and beyond. Please participate. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-vitalize the project?

Hi VIC folks,

It has been six years since the project started, and I was thinking if we should pause for a while to consider if the project works as intended?

And if there are areas of improvement, discuss what could be done.

What really triggers my discussion here is this discussion at QIC, where users argue and complain that it is hard for users, who cannot afford a DSLR, typically from less developed areas of the world, to get acknowledgement for their contributions via the QI and FP image evaluation projects. And partially due to this, we have huge inhomogenieties in what kinds of topics are highlighted and where in the world such contributions come from.

One of the initial objectives of COM:VI was to give room for such contributions, as the technical quality of the nominations at COM:VIC do not require a DSLR, although the image should still be good at illustrating it subject at the review size.

It appears to me, that this objective of the original project has not been met. If we see what kind of nominations is done and who nominated and evaluates, it does not represent a broad spectrum of the earths population. It is in reality a niche project with a relatively few number of hard core users. I do not state that to criticise the active users in the project in any way, but to highlight that for whatever reason, the project has drifted apart from one of the original primary objectives. That may not be a problem, as maybe the original objective is no longer seen as a primary objective in the project. But if that is the case we have a general problem on Commons in our inability to attract a wider diversity of contributors and contributions.

I my opinion, we should try to tweak the direction of the VI ship, such that it better fulfills this original objective. I do not know if you agree?

If so, here is my take on some of the improvable issues in the project that we have to address

  1. The user interface is complicated and an entrance barier to new users not familiar with the arcane wikitext format and weird templates.
  2. The issues of the scope is an entrance barrier to new users. A lot of resources are used to correctly design the scope and this alienates new users and drive them off.
  3. The granularity of the scope is confusing. How specific/unspecific should a scope be.
  4. Scopes are in English and pose a barrier to users not proficient in English.
  5. The VI galleries do not work as intended, they are not of any practical use and too large. I think we should abandon the galleries alltogether and rely on the images being in the main category structure and use tools like FastCCI to find VIs in a node in a category tree instead.
  6. Let us abondon the idea about tagging images in galleries with {{VI-tiny}}. Using FastCCI is better.

Ideas for improvement:

  1. Use the file or file talk pages for the actual reviews, such that they are easier to find. Use some kind of review categories as the entrance point to reviews.
  2. Abandon scopes, or re-think the scope idea, such that handling the topic becomes much more easy. I have at present no good idea on how to reform that.
  3. Spend resources on developing a user-friendly multilingual wizard-like interface, which helps in the nomination and review process.
  4. Commons:Photography critiques is effectively dead. Merge that into VI and establish a friendly culture of constructive critique and feedback to photography newbies. Consider replacing a pass/fail as VI with a more gradual value index, where the image gets points for its ability to properly illustrate the subject, its uniqueness, its description and categorization, its number of uses on other wikimedia projects - the latter is a strong indicator of its actual value.
  5. Consider using available data of page views on pages where an image is used to calculate an "impact score". If an image is used on a wikimedia page, which receives 20000 page views per day, it has higher project value than an image used on three obscure wikimedia project pages, which each gets three page views per day. impact score on page = Monthly page views / images on page. impact score = sum of impact page score for each wikimedia page the image is used in. This can be automated and is an objective measure.

-- Slaunger (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Kudos for making this initiative. Jee 12:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I think using file talk for actual review is good idea; However VICbot should make index for the nominated files.  revimsg 12:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I think the VI project work quite well these days. My only complain is that scope are often too narrow, which IMO doesn't make sense. Also the idea that a DSLR is necessary to make a QI is false. Any good compact/bridge/hybrid cameras can make a QI. As I said on the QI talk page, with a recent camera, the issues are more misunderstandings of QI criteria, and lack of photographic skills. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) I nominated my first VI a few days ago. After 10 years on the commons, I still found the process difficult (especially the scope rules). Others will have a more difficult time. (2) Regarding {{VI-tiny}}, we should have a bot do that if we want to use it. There is no reason for a human to ever have to do that. (3) Similar to how some have thousands of QI candidates, I probably have many hundreds of VI candidates, but I can't just go nominating them all. For example, I recently uploaded a dozen or so Caladium images of various cultivars. They all look different and are distinguished by those looks. There are over a 1000 Caladium cultivars, so if someone specialized in finding the most valued Caladium images, there could be a thousand images. This page is not equipped for that kind of volume. (4) Maybe scope shouldn't be a nomination criteria, but something the reviewers determine. They are best equipped to make that determination anyway. -- Ram-Man 16:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
In this case, only famous cultivars should be nominated. IMO, a scope is acceptable only if it has an article in Wikipedia, or a category or Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Why famous? Usefulness is not the same thing as popularity. The images I uploaded were part of a test plot at the notable Longwood Gardens. This one did win the popularity contest, but does that make the others in the plot any less useful? The images show a wide range of the cultivar variation, with little overlap, each one bred for its specific attributes. They are all equally useful because they are all different. -- Ram-Man 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, then the question is why distributing stars? With the current application of scope, almost any image of a descent quality can be a VI. Sure, your images are useful, but I don't see the point to promoting every image to VI. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Caladiums are unusual in the wide range of cultivars (like Daffodils). The other end of the spectrum is this image, a feature picture that might barely be unique enough to pass as a VI for the entire genus because there is such little differentiation among the species. Quality isn't relevant here. -- Ram-Man 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
From my appreciation VI is the most important labels. In general we are in duality there will have many contributors from around the world but we must keep and if possible improve the quality of what we offer. These two points are difficult to reconcile. If you open too many criteria, quality will deteriorate if it closes too, contributors are leaving.
We need to find a balance. For a few months it is not bad.
Many points can be improved.
The question of the photographic material has no place in VI, anyone with any equipment can make a picture labeled VI. Only the intrinsic value account. Here too there should be common sense an image dot accurately describe its subject, the perspective distortion is very easy to fix with free software. Geocoding is also very useful and does not discriminate against anyone.
The narrow gate is the scope. We all struggled with this obstacle. But it is the heart of VI. The scope is the reference of the judgment of the image, so it is well done, with references, understandable for all.
This point also raises the language. But although I have great difficulty expressing myself in English it seems impossible for me not to take English as a common reference.
If the scope is difficult is that it should be.
He set up a system, unwritten, where former help new arrivals. More new rules, it is human investment we need. May be a more formal mentoring is required, but I look for a few months that our operation seems more serene.
Your proposals are in line with a more fraternal operation and I am very happy. But there may be a bit too utopian, we must remember that the wiki continues to grow and every day there are a billion new images created in the world. I'm not sure that the weight of our votes based on the rate of viewing the image is a good idea. I even think otherwise, we are not here to follow the crowd but to educate; draw his attention to difficult issues. I am pleased that the photograph of a sparrow's egg is seen by thousands of people but I am sad that my images of the Akan culture are viewed by anyone. But I do not think we can impose rules to change that.
Take care of our images, take care of our captions that are as important as the image. Work with tact and moderation. Do not forget that the purpose is to freely disseminate knowledge. This knowledge is the cement that must unite us and cement must be strong.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you about the scope: it may difficult to understand, but that's not a reason to suppress it. And may be we need more formal mentoring.
This discussion makes me realize that we may not have the same objective for this project. For me, it is to encourage contributors to upload good images of subject not well covered, which could be species, works of art or monuments, but not to get stars for images of every houses or every streets. Here we have a bit the same issue as QI, where some people nominate 10 pictures nearly identical of already well covered subjects. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
(1) I really don't think there is any serious effort to get a VI "for stars". It's just too difficult of a process to make it worthwhile. (2) What is "value"? I bet we all have a different idea. Despite over a thousand cultivars, the commons only has a 19 different cultivars and a bit more than 60 pictures of the entire genus. So, are all 19 cultivars VI candidates or is there some cutoff? (3) Part of the difficulty in scope determination is how arbitrary value determination is. If a plant has a lot of variation, even within a species or cultivar, should we just have one valued image that is "typical", or do we find value in highlighting the diversity? (4) Historians may one day look back and thank the persons who take pictures of every building in a town or city. Such documentation only grows more valuable with time. -- Ram-Man 20:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems we have different ideas. I am not commenting about cultivars, and I am usually not voting about botanic scopes, as I am great ignorantus in this matter. To give an example which looks less foreign to me, should we have a scope for every colors of cats? Regards, Yann (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Ram-Man, see Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants. So a scope like Tulipa clusiana, 'Lady Jane' is perfectly OK and different from Tulipa clusiana or Tulipa clusiana, <other cultivar>. A separate category for the cultivar (as in this example) is good; but not compulsory. Similarly, we can have Tulipa clusiana, blossom; Tulipa clusiana, seed; Tulipa clusiana, front view; Tulipa clusiana, side view; etc. The concept of scope is well defined (as Archaeodontosaurus said above); but complex to understand and follow for newcomers.
I think the VI veterans should take time to analyse why this beautiful project failed to attract many people. My opinion: 1. It takes time to understand the entire VI concept. Once we learn the concepts, then it is not so difficult. 2. VI is an easy pass; so no thrill of pass or failure and no one care the VI badge, much. 3. Too much steps (=FPC) compared to QIC for a simple case. So not worth for the efforts. 4. .... Jee 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Slaunger, my initial complaint was about the "best in scope" concept; not about scope itself. It may be good for pictures that are not frequently reproduced (as Archaeo's pictures as little chances that he photographs the museum specimens again and again); but not good for pictures of me. There are already 36 pictures in that category; chances that it overflow when I'm in good mood. So it is difficult for me choose one male and female as best in scope; and chances that better images will come soon. So we need to frequently replace the VIs using MVR. Otherwise wrong image will hold the VI tag, when far better images arrives. Moreover, only one VI possible while for QIs and FPs possible is a bit odd concept.
On the other side, if we give VI badge to all "good enough" pictures, it will end up as a collection of "semi quality" images below "quality images". Is it bad? No I think. :) Jee 06:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


  • Image plethora (Yann) is a new problem, but it exists. One of the ideas that should guide us is the tact and measurement. There must be a reasonable number of views so that the subject is well described. It would be useful to my sense of the limited number of appointment 2 or 3 per day which allows us to have time to make good appointment and we avoid overflows
Cultivars and color cats (Ram-Man & Yann) the fact that we do not have the same definition of "value" is not a disability, but wealth. We have never learned as much as the type of discussion where we are. The subject of cultivars is very difficult. Botany is a universe in itself. Maybe we should think, referents contributors on topics as difficult as cultivars. I do not vote on these images because I feel personally incompetent.
Color cats falls exactly the same process. A species is modified by man to obtain varieties. If the variety is known worldwide obtained we can assign a label, but it would be unreasonable to give a systematic way.
(For Jee), I think we're still at the beginning. To build a large and sustainable building we ambition we need a solid foundation. Labelle VI sums up the meaning of our commitment. It does not seem to me desirable VI becomes a mass label, although I am very attached to it is accessible to all at any time. We just need motivated contributors and not tourists. The roughness of VI is actually an asset that must be determined.
Images with the label VI must be a reference. The best in its scope. So the label may not be final. All labels that I raised will necessarily redistributed. But that does not demotivate me. This is excellent work that should guide us. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A good solution to emphasize this label, would be in my opinion the automatic display of VIs at the top of the categories (the category of the scope), such as it is at present made with FastCCI, but this time this in a systematic and automatic way. What would be logical because the VIs are supposed to be the best in the scope, thus to be the best representation of the subject of the category. I precise I talk about cartegories and not subcategories, there is a very big difference, and the scope are differents form a category to a subcategory. In summary use FastCCI for QI, FP (and VI of the subcategories) and use an automatic display for VI of the current category where you are looking for. -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It is the best in scope idea to emphasize the label and revitalize it. :)-- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Unarchived for three reasons: I've flipped "minthreads" from 0 to 4 to get a ToC on a non-empty page soon. It was and maybe still is a relevant discussion. Maybe my comment elsewhere was related, because I misssed the discussion here. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New version taken by Hubble

Now that Hubble made a new version of the picture, shoul we not replace the old one ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antennae_Galaxies_reloaded.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoginkLobabi (talk • contribs)
If you find nice free pictures, please upload them, and if you think they are better than an existing valued picture for a given scope nominate them to shoot it out. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Something wrong

I'm sorry. Sorry for nominating two images. While categorizing my images I found two similar Valued Images. So one of them can't be a valued images. So what can be done? These are the images:

So I need a little help. Thanks. --XRay talk 19:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would simply pick one, and remove the VI tag from the other. Thanks for reporting this. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll do this. Thanks. --XRay talk 19:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with new nominations

I don't know what is wrong but it seems the new nominations don't appear although they have been taken into account and seem to have been registered. Could someone check? Thank you. Dinkum (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Commons:Valued image candidates/EDKR Bergfliegen 2012 1892.jpg doesn't show up on the candidate list either. Maybe a case of "too many templates"? The bot removing old nominations seems to have been inactive for some time … --El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is reported, it will be repaired.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yay, the bot is working again! New images are showing up. It has been noticed somewhere else that currently the maximum number of displayed nominations is 120. Can be increades if required. --El Grafo (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Where to put Most Valued Reviews?

This is confusing:

Can we please merge that to a single place for MVRs? --El Grafo (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Does nobody have an opinion on this? Let's try it this way: if noone objects, I'll remove the most values section from the normal candidate list and replace it with a link to Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list. --El Grafo (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
For my part I am very favorable: your idea is good. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree too.--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input →   Done --El Grafo (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

New (animated).gif Template:Valued images of insects

I am pleased to announce the creation of this template who placed at the head of the categories on valued images of insects by order, allow to cycles through these. Exemple : Category:Valued images of Hemiptera. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Je t'en félicite bien vivement, et souhaite tout aussi ardemment que tu en remplisse les colonnes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

VI criteria for images of buildings

I have been reading the rules that apply to VI scope for buildings. They say you have to have:

A location of more than local interest
Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope
Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope.
Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)

A majority of the VI candidates currently being approved do not appear to meet these criteria, many being of local interest, though I realize the criteria may be out of date or I may not be reading them correctly. Historic buildings in Venice, for instance, are much more likely to be of value than buildings or details of buildings in lesser-known towns. What does everyone think? Are the criteria sensible and, if so, should they be enforced? Charles (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • For who is ignoring a pebble is a pebble, for the savvy pebble can be the Holy Grail. "More than local interest" mean all and nothing to my eyes because a thing can have a very big interest for a person and no for another. In my opinion a scope is relevant when an image is needed for to illustrate it. As the difference of opinion is often a rich, free to those who think some scope are not relevant, to oppose. I saw other people on Commons think this kind of things about the scopes of VI, it's a pity they are not active in the VI project to make their voices heard, their view is all the less important. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with Christian Ferrer. VI is quite special, and sometimes difficult to understand. There is a large place for freedom, and interpretation. A picture of a place, or of a part of a place, listed as national cultural heritage, is for me "more than local interest", but everybody is free to agree or not with a nomination, discussion is open ! It happens sometimes that I oppose because a simple door, for instance, does not seem acceptable to me, even a door of a monument. Let's discuss !--Jebulon (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Charles that "a majority of the VI candidates currently being approved do not appear to meet these criteria", and I think it is an problem. Initially there needed to be a category on Commons or an article in one of the Wikipedia for a scope to be acceptable. That's one of the reason I don't participate much these days. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Charles too. Every candidate page clearly says in strong, red letters Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. [...] Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. So there is clearly not such a large place for freedom and interpretation and discussions, sorry Jebulon. To me it seems after my very negative first (and last) personal experience and some observation since then that the rules and guidelines at VI have gotten clearly out of hand and been replaced by a set of personal routines and undocumented joint inventions. I guess it would be very helpful if people would stick to the written rules much more. Regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Denis Barthel: The fact that you use twice the word "clearly" is the evidence that no, it is not so clear... I understand the quote "you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion" as an invitation to freedom and interpretation. Anyway, should we "do something"? Of course yes. But as an old regular here, I know that it was several time discussed without solutions. Maybe the use of an image candidate, at least in one other than "Commons" wikimedia project, should be a mandatory before a nomination, and not an option (if the article does not exist, the picture can be used in a gallery or so). Notice that some users here will claim that "Commons" is "not only a depository for wikimedia projects", and will therefore disagree with this kind of proposal. As for me, I promiss that all my future nominations will be in use !--Jebulon (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe the proposal of the criteria "image used" is an alternative to existing criteria, not a replacement. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This issue has already been discussed, and we fail to come to an agreement. The most important point is stated by Yann. A simple rule, which is not put into practice, is the need that the image is used in an article. I propose that this rule is applied which should move us forward in the direction of the quality of this label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This would enlarge the existing criteria, and it may be useful, as it is objective. As for the featured pictures contest on English WP, I think the image should be in an article for at least a week. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree for the week, I will even say a little more; but, here too, we will quickly identify anomalies.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not against, the idea is good, but the problem is that many articles are simply not available, for many insect species to name a few. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
At least a species is a valid scope. Quite easy to agree on that. The issue might be for subspecies, cultivars, animals behaviour, animals portraits, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
We always come back to the same wall. We can continue that by accepting that there is a proportion of interpretative rules. The rules give us a direction to us to find a balance. Each nomination must be a special case. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's quite a different thing, as you're talking about images while the topic is about scopes.
I don't think requiring an image to be in use is a good idea. 1) As Christian Ferrer pointed out, articles may not exist yet. 2) Quite often articles use inferior images because that's what was available when the article was created and nobody updated it when better images were uploaded. 3) One of the goals of VI is to help people find the best images for their articles, and making this decision based on what is already used may become a circular reasoning.
On the other hand, when it comes to determining whether a scope is worth having, things may be different: If there are Wikipedia articles about a building, this may be a good indication that this building deserves its own scope. I wouldn't make that a requirement though, because of 1) above.
Basically, I think we should do the following:
  • Encourage nominators to make more use of the reason= field to explain why they think that a) their scope is a useful one and b) their image is the best one within that scope.
  • Encourage reviewers to re-read COM:VISC and COM:VICR every once in a while and be a bit more careful about what they promote. Don't be shy, declining a nomination doesn't mean you're a bad person!
  • Encourage reviewers to to double-check other reviews and state their opinion if they disagree. It's nothing personal!
--El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I rather agree and I am not certain that encourage someone to change an image on wikipedia just in purpose to have a promotion (or a seal) will be always a good idea as the candidate is not yet promoted and maybe not the best choice for the article...sometimes maybe but not always. Or it must that this image is since long time in the article, rather a month than one week. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New nominations

Hello, new nominations are no longer displayed. Regards --Jean11 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Bot" does not work you have to wait ... I point the problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Mmmh, the bot did a run on the 23rd but not on the 24rd. Not sure if it stopped working again or if is just didn't have anything to extract yesterday – I guess we'll have to keep an exe on this.
For explanation: When the bot stops working, finished nominations are not removed from the page any more. Since the number of nominations that can be displayed is limited by {{VICs}}, when the limit is reached new nominations are not displayed until some old ones are removed. Since this has been happening before, I've raised the limit from 120 to 160 nominations yesterday, hoping that this'll help a bit. --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your intervention is already a lot.I've always wondered if the Bot starts automatically or when activated manually?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, the bot runs automatically, but sometimes it gets stuck and has to be restarted manually. --El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
FTR: Bot's working again] … --El Grafo (talk)

Overly specific sub-scopes (am I out of line?)

Dear all,

over the last few months, I have observed an increase of what I perceived as "overly specific/narrow sub-scopes". It has always been my impression that (apart from the rewarding feeling for the successful author) the main goal of VI is to provide Wiki authors with a selection of those images that are best suited to be used in an article on a given topic (scope). That didn't always work as well as intended because VI were hard to find, but FastCCI and the "Good pictures" button on category pages are making that pretty easy now. With a simple click you can get a list of FP, QI and VI in a category. Depending on the size of the category, the list of QI can be enormous and thus pretty useless for finding the best image quickly. And that's where VI is the more important project, as filtering for VIs only gives you just a handful of the most useful images. Or at least is should. The problem I see with having too many and overly specific sub-scopes is, that this key feature of VI might get lost. Suppose we have a Category that contains about 20 images of a subject. They are all a little bit different and we might be able to construct a sub-scope for most of them. Then the "Good pictures" tool would return a list of maybe 15 images, which doesn't really help anyone bringing down the Category content to the one or two images best suited for an article.

On the last few days, I have made some comments on nominations where I thought the (sub-) scope was too narrow to be useful. Doing that, I must have stepped on some toes, as my edits were perceived as disruptive by at least one nominator. I am deeply sorry for that, it was the last thing I intended. I must have something wrong, but I'm not sure if it was because my perception of what makes a good scope is out of line or because I failed to communicate that in an appropriate way. So here are some thoughts on this topic:

  • I makes sense to me to have different sub-scopes for north, west, etc. views of a building. However, it does not make sense to me to have different sub-scopes for details like entrance portals, single windows, doorknobs etc. unless they really are of general interest.
  • The same goes for interiors: For a Christian church for example (assuming it is OK per the "not every church …" rule), it totally makes sense to have a VI for the whole interior looking towards the altar (aka. a "Diliff"), plus maybe one in the other direction. It may or may not make sense to have a sub-scope for close-ups of the altar or the organ, if they are something the church is famous for. But in my opinion, it does not make sense to have a separate sub-scope for every little statue of a saint sitting in a corner of that church (again, unless it is really notable for some reason).
  • Utilitarian objects. As we have a lot of great camera pictures coming in at the moment, I'll take them as a example, but I think this applies to most objects: Imho, one front- top- and back-view respectively should be enough. Maybe a bottom or side view. But not 10 different angles with 10 different lenses attached to the body, each with and without lens cap (I'm exaggerating here, of course).
  • Last but not least, I think before going into sub-scopes we should make sure that a main scope VI is already picked and that the sub-scope adds something to it. There's really no need to add a "front view" to a scope when all the other sides of an object are utterly uninteresting.
  • Of course, exceptions may apply for any of these points!

I'd very much like to hear your opinions on this. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I can agree, and it´s my fault too, that we have this discussion right now. Thanks for this oversight! --Hubertl 05:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your recent actions and especially for the discussions that result. The problem is that the good image search tool in its current state is too coarse. We should be able to set the research that is finer.
For your general thoughts they are common sense, and I am all doing okay.
A good scope well described should prevent problems and allow for expansion of the label image VI. But this good initial idea may turn against us with generating too many "pieces" of scopes.
I return to the proposal made earlier: for an image is what VI must be useful and used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I copy my extract from the VI scope criteria:
A location of more than local interest
Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope
Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope.
Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)
Many images of buildings currently being approved do not meet these criteria. Charles (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The first 3 points are not really relevant for this discussion – which is my fault, I should have been more clear: I was talking about sub-scopes only. I've always called them like that in my head and forgot they are called "additional scopes" in the buildings section the guidelines (but they're called "sub-scopes" in the animals section). In this whole section, I'm assuming that the subject itself is worth its own (main) scope because it's of more than local interest etc. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I am broadly in agreement with El Grafo. Following on his example of a Christian Church, I agree that the porch of a redundant British Grade II listed church is probably too narrow a scope for a VI, unless some compelling reason can be put forward for it to be a VI. However, if the same porch were to be proposed the best image in the scope "Porch of a British Medieval Church" then there is no reason why it should not be put forward as an example of that style of architecture. Martinvl (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the last part: If that portal (or whatever) is representative for a typical architectural element of a specific style (say, en:Gothic art), it's totally fine to use that as a scope. It would probably be wise to use the reason= parameter of the nomination template to explain why this specific picture of this specific portal is the best we have for this specific scope, to make the decision easier (I'm not a specialist in medieval architecture, and I suppose that's true for most of our reviewers). In any case, it wouldn't be a sub-scope of the main scope for that specific church any more, so this case is kind of beyond the scope ;-) of this discussion, but thanks for bringing it up – that part obviously needed clarification. --El Grafo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Info I've started a spin-off discussion for animal sub-scopes here. I think that section of the rules needs a little bit of clean-up, so please feel invited to comment there as well. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination terminated after 19 hours scope change?

Hello Palauenc05 why did you terminated nomination after 19 hours scope change. Please be undone, thank you. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Archaeodontosaurus, can you help? Thanks. --Kameraprojekt Graz 2015 (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Nobody err. You have the place the picture under discussion which will give you more time. But do not worry. you can put this image in the competition with the new scope for a new vote, you've every right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most Valued Image reviewing rules

Commons:Valued image candidates/Review procedure tells us:

"Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it)."

How does this work for Most Valued Image (MVI) reviews?

  1. Can the creator of a new MVI review group vote for candidates that he did not nominate but which he did move to the MVI review group?
  2. Can the creator of a new MVI review group vote for candidates that he has nominated and added to the MVI review group?
  3. Can the nominator of a candidate moved to an MVI review group not created by him vote for the candidate he nominated?
  4. Can the nominator of a candidate moved to an MVI review group not created by him vote for one of the other candidates he did not nominate?

Please advise. DeFacto (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question.
  1. I'd say yes, because moving stuff to MVR is just an administrative task – unless s/he has nominated a counter-candidate (see 4).
  2. I'd say no – the you can't vote for what you've nominated rule should of course apply to MVR as well. Unless we're talking about re-opening the old discussion of an existing VI nominated by somebody else that has been challenged – that's again a purely administrative thing (a service for the nominator of the counter-candidate who probably just didn't check if there's already an existing VI).
  3. I'd say no – the you can't vote for what you've nominated rule should of course apply to MVR as well.
  4. I'd say no, as a vote against another candidate can have the same effect as a vote for your own candidate.
So, I'm tending to treat a MVR as a single entity with the same rules that apply to a normal nomination: If you've nominated, you can't vote. --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: I agree with you, and that is exactly how I imagined it should be, in spirit if not in precise letter anyway. However, the creator of the "Inveraray Castle south-west fascade" MVI review, who added four new nominations of his own against a pre-existing nomination of mine (which he had moved from the general VI review), then went on to record an oppose vote against my nomination, giving his four nominations a +1 advantage. No-one objected or queried that though, so I thought my idea of fair-play was, perhaps, incorrect. DeFacto (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Well, to be honest (and in Martin's defense): This is what I came up with after actually thinking about it for a while. Had I been the one nominating the counter-candidates, I might actually have voted as well, as it's not that obvious (and the rules don't explicitly mention MVR). I think that was most likely just an honest mistake anyone could have made. @Martinvl: maybe you'd like to take back that vote? It doesn't look as if that would really change the outcome anyway at the moment. --El Grafo (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have already done that (see below). I think that our messages "crossed in the post". Martinvl (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I must appolgise for mis-reading the rules. I have now rectified the situation. It should however be noted that moving an image from the VIC list to the MVR list negates existing votes, so my "oppose" negated the exiting "support" vote. Martinvl (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Martinvl: thanks for addressing that. DeFacto (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Are you referring to the sentence "However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR" in Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review? I think you have to read that in context with the preceding sentence: as far as I understand it, that only applies to old nominations of existing VIs that have been re-opened because someone has found a better one and nominated it to replace the old one. Will comment on your proposal below later, I'm too tired atm. --El Grafo (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

On reading DeFacto's questions and also looking at the other responses, may I suggest that in future the voting at a MVR should be as follows (this might need some discussion):

  • Everybody (including the nominator) is entitled to one "support" vote attached to any one image.
  • Nobody may "oppose" a single image, but they may however oppose the scope of the MVR, following the same rules as for a VIC or they may "oppose" all the images on grounds that none of them are suitable.
  • The votes are then processed as follows:
  • The number of support votes for all images are counted and one vote is deducted (to account for the nominators being allowed to vote).
  • The number of "oppose" votes are counted up.
  • The rules for VIC vote-counting then apply except that at this stage a second count of votes is needed to identify which image is promoted.
  • The image with the most "support" votes is promoted.
  • If two or more images have the same number of votes, then there is a run-off vote between those candidates.
  • If the number of votes is still the same, voting is reopened and remains open until somebody changes their mind.

Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

    • I've read this very carefuly, it is very interesting. In my opinion, there is no reason for changing the current rules.--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

VI with disputed taxonomy

 
probably not Cottus gobio

The file on the right is the current VI in the scope Cottus gobio. It is currently under discussion at the german village pump. Short summary: At the uploader's Flickr stream, the same image is described as showing Cottus rhenanus, same thing here, and according to Kai.pedia the author has confirmed that Cottus rhenanus is correct. The folks over at the VP are currently considering having an uninvolved expert having a look at this as well. I suppose we can wait until they've sorted it all out before we take any action regarding VI status, just thought I'd mention it here before I forget about it … --El Grafo (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

MVR closure malfunction

(Cross-posted to Commons talk:Valued images#MVR closure malfunction)

On 5 November I closed 3 'Most Valued Reviews' ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade", "Gierymskich 8, Kłodzko" and "Lupinus pilosus (habitus)"), by following the steps detailed in Commons:Valued image closure#Closing most valued reviews. VICbot ran on 6 November and successfully extracted the processed candidates of the last 2 of my 3 closure attempts, but for the first ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade"), only 1 of the 5 processed nominations was extracted.

This was my first attempt at closing an MVR, and I suspect I may have messed it up somehow. VICbot has run again several times since then, but the remaining Inveraray 4 still have not been extracted. I did put a message on Dschwen's talkpage (redirected from VICbot's talkpage) asking for help, but have had no response there.

Can anyone throw any light on what has gone wrong here and help to fix this mess please? DeFacto (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I've just come across another set of rules for closing MVRs at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules#Most Valued Reviews, and reading through both sets, I see that I should have closed all candidates as "undecided", even those that were opposed, because there was no overall winner. I'll try that and wait for VICbot to run again. DeFacto (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
That didn't trigger VICbot either, so - in the absence of any response here - I've extracted the lingering nominations by hand. DeFacto (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Does anyone know the correct procedure to be followed to have third party review if one editor opposes nominations by another, then refuses to revert the oppose when the reason for the oppose has been explained as an error. Medium69 has also made a threat on my Commons talk page which I believe to be inappropriate. Charles (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Hi, If the issue continues, you can bring it to COM:AN/U. On the substantive issue, I am a complete newbie regarding insects, so I will wait for other opinions. @Medium69: I don't think your warning is appropriate here. Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
As a complete newbie regarding insects, it would therefore be correct for you to reverse your oppose of my insect nomination and bird nomination. Charles (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I was talking about me. You don't know what Medium69 knows about insects and birds. Yann (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right - my apologies to Medium. Charles (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
To both: I suggest that you avoid voting or commenting on each other nominations for a while. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but see below. Charles (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing a nomination

I don't think it can be right for an editor (Medium69) who has opposed a nomination (mine for the Scarlet ibis) to be able to then go an close it. Can another editor intervene please. Charles (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Valued image criteria

In the current year an user changed the Commons:Valued image criteria page without a real consent of the active users of this project, I reverted one of this change (the ones about the link), see [3], however the other change (in blue, at right, on the history page) is about the geolocation and I don't understand if it's useful or not, it is currently always on the page.
As most of you have not been consulted for this, if one of you is not agree with the change regarding geolocation, I will revert it too. Regard, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi @Christian Ferrer: what is the correct way here to get "real consent of the active users", I have the same question in the section above about car scopes? And how do we provide the translations into French, German, etc? DeFacto (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is a discussion, here, in this talk page, with votes, as in the beginning of the discussion above with some active users of the project. But honestly it became a bit complicated and incomprehensible with the subsections. The vote above is about the simple proposal made by Charles and not about the subsections (car, car second draft). In any cases, Archaeodontosaurus, who is the most active and experimented here, is the best able to see is there is a consensus, thus you should wait about his reaction. We have the time, some votes as QI or FP took several weeks. If in some days, or some weeks, he have not make the change, you will ask him why or/and if you can do it. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Christian. We are in the right place with the car scope one above then. That's where Martinvl went wrong, I guess. He tried to raise the discussion on the wrong page. DeFacto (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Can I add another problem we have right now. It is fine to have a category 'Animals in London Zoo' 'Birds of Jamaica' etc. I do not think it is appropriate to have a VI image 'Penguin in London Zoo' or 'Great egret in Jamaica'. Named animals (like a Giant Panda) or different sub-species would be OK if they are location-specific. Obviously fine to have different scopes for animals doing different things is they are valuable: eating, mating, in flight, swimming... etc. Also fine to have scopes for animals performing in a zoo, but not for a specific zoo unless it is valuable (like a named killer whale). Also, VI nominations should direct to the prime category so that voters can easily check other images. Can I have some views please. Charles (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have not seen the discussion on geolocation where is it? For the language problem it is simple only English will refer. Translations are more to help. For the problem of scopes on animals; I am of acord with Charles: it is impossilbe he did it, the location of scopes; except documented exceptions.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: the geolocation discussion is on the talk page of the VI criteria page. DeFacto (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Medium69

See here. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 23:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

VI notification Bot

If you look at my talk page, I've started to get multiple notifications of the same promotion. Anyone know how to stop it? Thanks. Charles (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Manually. it happens sometimes. You abducted the lines too much about your caption and you removed the image from the list. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But I haven't deleted anything from my talk page since posting my query and it's still happening... Charles (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Airplanes

Sorry for my bad english! What is with airplanes? What is a scope?

  • Airbus A-321 - there are thousands of pictures in hundrets categories
  • Airbus of Wiki-Air - may be hundrets photos, can also be only one airplane
  • AB-XYZ - only one airplane...

The Category:Ilyushin Il-10, there we have only some bad photos, there was 6000+ airplanes, this is easy ;) --Ralf Roleček 19:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think the general direction of scopes for most kinds of vehicles would be similar to what was proposed for cars up there.
  1. I think the Airbus A-321 scheme is the most useful one for Wikipedia editors looking for images. Possibly with sub-scopes for different versions (Airbus A-321 XL) or different states of flight (in-flight, air-to-air shots being particularly useful imho, as they show the aircraft in their "natural environment" – something most people will never be able to observe on their own). The problem with this is, that due to all those batch-uploads from airliners.net and similar sites, for the more popular types of aircraft there's a huge amount of candidates to review before coming to a conclusion. Nevertheless, I think this should be the default.
  2. Airbus of Wiki-Air doesn't make any sense to me. Airbus A-321 of Wiki-Air may or may not make sense. I'm not yet sure. I usually just don't vote on these. But I will oppose overly specific scopes like Airbus A-321 XL of Wiki-Air landing at Dubai Airport in 2011.
  3. I think in general, scopes for individual aircraft (AB-XYZ) are not of much use – unless it's a particularly famous one like, for example, Memphis Belle or Spirit of St. Louis. Nobody cares about D-EDSG, it's just one Cessna 172 out of thousands built.
--El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with El Grafo that we need to be careful about a proliferation of images. May I suggest that airline liveries do not constitute a separate scope, but that in event of there being two or more submissions aircraft of the same model but which have different liveries, liveries be used a "tie-breaker" with preference being given to liveries that at that time have the least exposure within VI.
Furthermore, may I suggest that there be restrictions on the number of images an editor may have under consideration at any one time (with more images allowed if he is also nominating an image with which he has no connection).
-- Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
A thought crossed my mind - maybe we could put the cars section on hold and look at writing a generic scope that would cover cars, cameras, aircraft, ships etc. Martinvl (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd welcome that. As for restricting the number of nominations per user: probably best to start a new section for that. --El Grafo (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination limit

QI has a limit of 5/day. There are fewer editors on VI so I am happy to propose a limit of 3 per day. Charles (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

  •   Oppose 5 per day is very good. Images have plenty of time to be seen. Editors fewer and fewer images. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 15:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support VI is more complicated than QI. 3 per day seems right to me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Question, is there a perceived problem with it being unlimited, as it currently is? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes there is, especially if one wants to add constructive criticisms. Martinvl (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Martinvl: what is that problem, that limiting nominations per nominator per day would be the solution to? What is the current average per nominator per day - is it more, or less, than 3? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact the real problem comes from Charlesjsharp, and to understand, just read its urgent request to Archaeodontosaurus. Another point that can enlighten you in French on my page ... I also maintain a reasonable limit of 5 VI a day no problem.
As well as he feels obliged to put only 3 images, it is imposed that rule to everyone ! --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
This is of course nonsense. I do only nominate my own images, but I vote on many other people's images. Medium69 is now taking his vendetta to ridiculous disruptive lengths. He has opposed two butterfly In his childish vendetta, Medium69 is being willfully disruptive and can another editor please take some action. All butterfly scopes have dorsal (topside of wings) and ventral (underside of wings) scopes. Charles (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Just analyze your history over several weeks, I did it for over a month, to see that you act only for you so very selfish as I developed on my talk page .
As in analyzing your request on the discussion, we understand that you only see your personal interest.
Just as you're of the Commons that for you ... No other contributions...--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


  Question, I'm not clear on the reason for this proposal. What is the problem that this is the proposed solution for? Should we be deterring people from adding valuable images to the project? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are too many submissions, then those of us who review submissions are overloaded. Also, it would encourage those who make submissions to also review other people's submissions. My ideal is that if a person make N submissions in a day of images that are not his (hers), then they can make N+1 submissions of their own, but for the time being I am happy to stick with 3.
Also, if there is a MVR challenge, it take time to get the other images up to scratch to launch a fair challenge. (For example here I brought four images up to VI standard in order to launch a MVR run-off. Martinvl (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have the same question as DeFacto I'm not sure we need to formalize this. Personally I have imposed upon myself to make only 3 frames per day, and treat as 3 per day per candidate. By experience we must do everything to avoid that MRV must remain an exceptional procedure.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I have launched a number of MVRs. Often my MVRs have been the result of a VI nomination but somebody else, but an image already exists in Commons that is better, but which needs a little tidying up. In addiiton, it takes time to identify suitable candidates for the MVR - often longer than the time taken for someone to create their own VI submission. Martinvl (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


@Martinvl: there is no obligation for you, or for anyone else, to review all nominations. We just need to review the ones that we have the time and inclination for - we can leave the rest for others. If some nominations never get reviewed, then they will simply fall off the end as "undecided", and become immediately eligible for renomination. That is not a problem - so it does not need a solution.

It is better, I think, that some valuable images get overlooked and pass through as "undecided" than that any valuable images remain unsubmitted simply because of unnecessarily bureaucratic and arbitrary rules.

Similarly, why deter people from nominating their own images by requiring them to nominate the images of others first? How will that encourage people to donate their valuable images? The inevitable outcome of that will be that people will simply nominate the requisite number random and possibly substandard images, simply to achieve the required count to allow them to then submit their own precious images.

As for MVRs, they should, in my opinion, be reserved for challenging an existing VI with a new nomination for the same scope. Additionally, I think they should be limited to 2 candidates at a time, the original VI and the new candidate. Multiple-candidate MVRs are a big turn-off for reviewers, and a big pain to close. MVRs should not, in my view, be used routinely to try to trump a new nomination with a plethora of competing images. If you believe that a new nomination is not the most valuable image in the given scope, then you should simply "oppose" it, giving the reason and linking to the suggested better image. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Although the debate have changed direction a bit, I fully agree that this says DeFacto. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Merely opposing a nomination because something better exists is taking the easy way out and will often result in nothing being proposed as a VI. You might have noticed that earlier on today I could have opposed the image of Notre-Dame on grounds that a better image existed and done nothing else. The result would probably have been that no VIs of Notre-Dame would have appeared in Commons. Now I hope that the best one will appear. A similar thing is likely to happen with the current VI nomination for the Eiffel Tower.Martinvl (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Your reasoning is not false, but it can be simplified. If the image is not selected then proposed one as you have chosen in the category. It's all so do not go through MVR that is not made for that.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

confused Bot?

Since some days the Bot marked pictures as VI but don' delete the listing here, example: File:15-04-25-Goldener-Saal-Zeppelintribüne-Nürnberg-RalfR-DSCF4463 4 5.jpg. --Ralf Roleček 18:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Some images are not automatically removed from the list and remain in place. If you have this problem, ask the person who close your candidacy to solve. There seems to be how to fill in the candidacy that there was a problem. Because only a small number of participants have. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Car scopes

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

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

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

Cars

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

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

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

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

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

Cars (second draft)

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

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

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

Vote for Cars (second draft)

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative text for Vehicles

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

Vehicles

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

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

@Martinvl:, this is too generalist, it doesn't work well for cars. Many car scopes will be exceptions to the 3-level rule. Also manufacturers commonly badge their cars with marques rather than "manufacturer", and may produce more than one marque. Think of General Motors who manufacture, or have manufactured, different ranges of models under numerous marques including: Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Opel and Vauxhall. Marque is definitely more desirable than manufacturer. Also you propose an unrealistic limit on number of scopes per variant, and what you classify as "sub-variants" may include visual differences at both ends, as may engine differences or even trim-level differences, so could not be accommodated under your proposed 2 views per variant limit. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to try to cover all vehicles in one section. DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 9".