Review
(criteria) |
- After searching for any discussion about videos in VIC, apparently not. So technically videos are out of the scope of VI. Perhaps we should start another discussion on whether to allow videos on VI or not.
- In my opinion, without the sound this might qualify as an "animation", which is allowed here. pandakekok9 12:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think purpose-wise, this is more akin to an animation, albeit not one of conventional format. I have also removed the audio as it is quite noisy. --17jiangz1 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Bold support Now that there is no sound. I think this can be considered as an animation. In fact, I think all animation should be in a "video" format, ideally AV1 (but since there's no MediaWiki support for that yet, ideally VP9), because it's smaller than a GIF. Imagine if this "video" is in GIF with the same resolution (1950x1950). The result probably would be a too large filesize.
- I encourage everyone participating in VI to raise their opinions here, whether they believe that this is a video because of the webm and should be disqualified, or that this is an animation in an "unconventional format". I would be happy to see some consensus established here. --pandakekok9 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose for now. Look at Commons:Valued image criteria. We would need to agree on some different criteria to be able to make videos VIs, wouldn't we? For that matter, where did you find documentation that animation that's not in the form of a single cel is acceptable here? I'd remind everyone of the existence of Commons:Featured video candidates. As of yet, there is no "Valued Video" category, but I think it's questionable for VI to take that over and needs to be debated somewhere where a record of the discussion will be better preserved than in a nomination response thread. I would suggest Commons talk:Valued image scope because I can't think of a better place. This file can always be renominated when we come to a consensus about videos and criteria for submitting and judging them. I would also invite User:Eatcha, who's worked hard to promote FVC and (unsuccessfully) Commons:Featured sound candidates to comment. Would you like to start the thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not up for working on any other competition which is not backed by atleast 10 interested long-term volunteers. Failure of COM:FSC , all the time I spent on fsc could have been spent on making COM:FVC better. I spent more time on FSC in the initial days, but we don't have the infrastructure for audio files on commons. Making nice music is tough. Making freely licensed music doesn't help musicians pay their bills. And comercial music is far better than freely licensed music. But if you compare FPs with images by professional photographers there isn't a big difference. IMO a bunch of commons users are better at photography than many overrated professionals. Eatcha (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Eatcha, COM:VIC is not a new project and has had enough volunteers to keep it going, especially since nominations need only one supporting vote to pass, unless the vote is contested. I'm not asking you to volunteer here. The reason I pinged you was that this nomination is an attempt to use VIC to make a video a "Valued image", and I thought you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether that's a good idea, and if so, what standards we should use to judge a video to be a valued image. I think it's doubtful, but that depends partly on whether you'd consider having a "Valued video" category that would presumable also require but one vote (if not contested) to pass a nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ikan Kekek I was not talking about COM:VIC(I know it's an old project,actually older than my account), but a new hypothetical project especially for videos similar to VIC, say Valued-Videos-Candidates. I meant, a new project for videos would certainly fail at this point of time, maybe including a rule for " valuable videos" in COM:FVC would be fine, but that's just me. // Eatcha (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Since we are talking about criteria here, how about we look if this nomination fits all the current criteria, while not looking whether this is a video or not?
 Criterion 1: Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons. AFAIK this is the only illustration (no other static pictures) on Commons about the flip-up camera.- Criterion 2: Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope. Same reason as criterion 1.
- Criterion 3: Must illustrate its subject well.
- Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view. Good here
- No distracting, irrelevant elements. Only the flip module is moving here, which is the focus of the nomination
- The image must look good on-screen at the review size. Nomination is 1950x1950 pixels, so this is good. Note that its usability in printed format is not considered, which is why animations are allowed in VI.
- Criterion 4: Is fully described on the image page. Nomination uses the Information template on its description page, and has a complete enough description in a language template (en).
- Criterion 5: Is geocoded, when relevant. Not relevant here.
- Criterion 6: Is well categorized at an appropriate level. Nomination is categorized to its smartphone and the category about the flip-up camera (which is the only member at the moment).
- So I think whether this nomination is a video or not doesn't really matter here. They passed the criteria, so this should be promoted to VI. pandakekok9 07:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree though that we would need a different criteria for videos more complex than this, so yeah, this isn't the appropriate place to discuss about that... pandakekok9 07:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This is the only free file of the flip-up camera AFAIK, and even if there are others, this is an animation, and IMO an animation best represents the flip-up camera. Well you can represent the flip-up camera in still images, but they will only show either the final result (flipped-up) or the beginning. Not really a good way to represent the flip-up camera. If you animate it though... pandakekok9 12:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. You could present a composite photograph, with one panel showing the "before" photo and the other, the "after" panel. Charles has posted some such photos here and gotten them promoted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
