Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2018/04

Emberiza impetuani impetuani (Lark-like bunting)

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2015-12-24 20:08 (UTC) Scope: Crithagra flaviventris (Yellow Canary)  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus ([[User talk:Archaeo dontosaurus|talk]]) 08:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)  Best in Scope Voltmetro 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: +1 => File:Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: Promoted. ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2018-03-27 22:03 (UTC) Scope: Emberiza impetuani impetuani (Lark-like bunting) Reason: Promoted image was incorrectly identified. Apologies. Charles (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC) -- Charles (talk)  Support I think all two photos in the category by Charles can be promoted, these are really amazing works and both fully depicts the scope. Voltmetro 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)  Question, if this is an MVR, why are the 2 nominations (this and this) in 2 different scopes and 2 different linked categories? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I think it was confused, and that nomination about you asked was identified wrong (as Emberiza impetuani instead of correctly Crithagra flaviventris). So that file was promoted 2 years ago with another scope and yesterday it was nominated again with the correct scope. Nevertheless, category Emberiza impetuani impetuani lost the VI (because the scope was incorrect) and this picture should replaced them. Voltmetro 09:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC) So it shouldn't be an MVR then, just a straight nomination for Emberiza impetuani impetuani? Is Charles aware of this? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I nominated the left hand image and it was promoted, but it had been incorrectly identified and is now renamed as a canary species. Hence I assumed that the correct process was to start a MVR with a correctly-identified image. I am not aware of a 'removal' process for a VI. Is there one? Charles (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Ah, I don't know, but if it gets promoted again it'll be a VI in both the old and new scopes. The easiest way would be an MVR against a bird which actually is in the old scope, but without one I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps Archaeodontosaurus might have encountered this problem before. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)  Comment The situation is complex but not insoluble. Generally speaking, Charles thinks he is mistaken for the first image and wants to free the scope to promote the second. I am not sure that the Bot can handle this situation. But we can solve the problem manually, after we have voted and the usual time has passed. In a particular way there is a problem with the first image. The female of Yellow Canary is very little colored, but it is practically always a yellow spot at the base of the tail. In exceptional cases there is no yellow coloring. But these are rare cases. This image is not typical of the female of this species. It could be elected with a restrint scope "brown form" but not with the proposed one. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The simplest solution would be to make a MVR with the old scope for the first image and not change anything for the second. The second image will be promoted as one can hope. The first will be declined by the Bot. In a second time if Charles wish it can represent the declassified image with a new scope as it has the right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I'm not nominating the canary image for VI Archaeodontosaurus. Charles (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: In this case it is simpler: it is not necessary to remove the image but only replace the initial scope and the procedure of MVR will be able to be done naturally. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: Promoted. <-- ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Onychognathus nabouroup (Pale-winged Starling)

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2008-10-26 18:18 (UTC) Scope: Onychognathus nabouroup (Pale-winged Starling) Used in: CheckUsage  Support - No problems ... and no competition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)  Support OK for me --Eusebius (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Onychognathus nabouroup.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Pale-winged starling (Onychognathus nabouroup).jpg: +1 => File:Onychognathus nabouroup.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Pale-winged starling (Onychognathus nabouroup).jpg: Promoted. ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2018-04-01 14:43 (UTC) Scope: Onychognathus nabouroup (pale-winged starling)  Support Best in scope --PJDespa (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Onychognathus nabouroup.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Pale-winged starling (Onychognathus nabouroup).jpg: +1 <-- => File:Onychognathus nabouroup.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Pale-winged starling (Onychognathus nabouroup).jpg: Promoted. <-- ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

African red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans)

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-02-10 21:14 (UTC) Scope: Pycnonotus nigricans (Black-fronted Bulbul) Used in: af:Rooioogtiptol, en:Black-fronted Bulbul, nl:Buulbuuls, pt:Pycnonotus nigricans  Support - best image we have (of the 2) for the species, good pose, well described and geocoded...meets all the criteria - Peripitus (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)  Oppose -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Pycnonotus nigricans.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. African red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans).jpg: +1 => File:Pycnonotus nigricans.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:African red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans).jpg: Promoted. ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2018-04-01 22:47 (UTC) Scope: Pycnonotus nigricans (African red-eyed bulbul)  Support - Obviously superior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Pycnonotus nigricans.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) 2. African red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans).jpg: +1 <-- => File:Pycnonotus nigricans.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:African red-eyed bulbul (Pycnonotus nigricans).jpg: Promoted. <-- ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)