Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Domain-specific scope policies: proposals

Hi all. I think that we really need, as a separate section in COM:VISC, a few scope policies that are specific to some domains (in a way that would be similar to what is done on some WPs for eligibility criteria). We need to have rules to decide whether a subject is worth a scope or not. I'm not really aware of the best practices on Commons for decision taking inside a project, so I'll just propose a few domains and policies (in an informal way). Please feel free to add more domains or policies to the list, to propose changes, to express your opinion about the proposals (right below them), to say that the whole thing is stupid (but in that case, please say why!)... And please, if you know of a better way to discuss that, just do it! Also, feel free to correct my English in the proposals. --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First session of discussion

First session of discussion

General sufficient conditions to justify a scope

  • The scope corresponds to a gallery of more than 5 pictures.
     Question Is the threshold ok? Is it necessary? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    No way, this might prevent rare subjects to be considered! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't mean it as a requirement, but as a sufficient condition: if there is a gallery about X, then scope "X" should be acceptable. It doesn't mean that a scope without a gallery is not OK. I understand that it could prevent nominations, but I'm not totally convinced about that. NB: it's only a suggestion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    I dislike the idea of adding numbers to this. Even though it will not be a requirement it could demotivate users from uploading the new stuff which nobody has cared adding before. You got to ask yourself: Is the scope of relevance for Wikimedia projects? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree on the number thing. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The scope corresponds to an article on any Wikipedia encyclopedia.
     Comment More suggestions? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    I do not think that is a good idea. The scope for Commons is all existing (and future - whatever that is) Wikimedia projects. Like the scope for Wikispecies is to describe every species there. This is not the scope in Wikipedia - as there is a "notability" threshold for species to surpass. like describing 65 species of some beetle genus would hardly warrant a Wikipedia article per species. A valuable illustration for Wikinews and Wikiversity may not be particularly valuable for a Wikipedia. And there are all the - yet - nonexisting projects, which are also in scope for Commons. We got to step back and see if the scope has informational and/or an educational character in which case it is in scope irrespective of whether there currently is a Wikipedia article dealing with the scope or an article in any other projects. The goal is to leverage the media. Unlike the equivalent projects on WP we do not require article first - then media. Here it can be media before article. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with you, but again, I only wanted to provide a sufficient condition. I don't see how it is in contradiction with what you say (except maybe if you mean that it could prevent nomination by discouraging users by its formulation). --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Animals

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official latin name (vernacular name, if applicable)".
     Comment Agree on the scope name. For some well known species though (like the Common Frog for instance) it is OK with more than one scope if it is perceived as being of relevance for Wikimedia projects. In that case the scope should be appended with a description of the specific aspect illustrated, i.e., "juvenile", "hunting", "mating", "hatching", "male", "albino". -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at the parent taxonomy level (rule is of course recursive).
     Comment Agreed. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a "male" scope and a "female" scope can be proposed for the same species.
    Yep. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
     Comment Could somebody propose a nice rule for "mating" scopes?
    It depends on whether the species is sufficiently interesting to warrant a mating sub-scope. Cannot really be set in stone. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A scope directed to a head and body view of an animal may also be considered distinct from a scope covering the full animal since these show different and significant aspects of the species.
     CommentThis one is directly quoted from COM:VISC, should we put restrictions? I would not consider the head of a mouse interesting enough to justify a scope, but the head of a bald eagle (or the eye of a fly), why not. --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
     Comment More suggestions? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
     Comment The relevance of details are often coupled to some generic characteristics of a higher taxa. For instance e have a nice VI of the "head of a fly". I think this is OK, but i would not support a "head of some fly species" scope.
     Comment I'm not convinced if this would merit a different scope. It may be part of a VIS though. Lycaon (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why not. But then I think we would need to set up a procedure for the replacement of a VI by a VIS, in the case somebody is able to nominate a VIS for a species which already has a VI. With VIS we could stick to one species/one scope, with male/female/mating... included in the VIS rather than being separate VI's.--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think that VISs for a species scope should be special as they should form a coherent set, i.e., details of the same individual under somewhat identical lightning condition. Not an 1887 scanned scheme, a head photo from Israel and full body photo from Libya - that is what we have the species categories and galleries for. A VIS should be more than a featured species gallery - it should be coherent. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Then we should make this coherency a criterion for VI sets, it is currently not a written requirement. --Eusebius (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What about eggs/larvae/juveniles? Lycaon (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    No problem if of sufficient relevance for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Birds should have a flying and non flying scope. These show different and significant aspects of this particular type of animal.
    Maybe the two suggestions above could be done with VI sets? What do you think? It looks nice to me, but it would be difficult to decide when the set is complete (it would often be easy to add something to a specise VIS). --Eusebius (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    No, not in a set. What if one comes by with a better image of the bird flying? Would you then demote the set, and how about the other non-flying image, which may still be the best. It is better wih independent VIs in that case, if it is relevant to have a VI of both a flying and a non-flying individual. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Plants

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official scientific name (vernacular name, if applicable)".
    Yes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The main scope should show most of the plant (flowers, stem and leaves when applicable).
    Yes. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • For diclinous plants a scope for male and a different one for female flowers, for monoclinous plants a single scope for the flower.
    Most often yes, provided it is of sufficient interest for Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A separate scope for the fruit/seed.
    If relevant and if the fruit/seed is visually distinct from the fruit/seed of other berries. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Bark, roots, leaves and habitat will likely have no separate article and so are fit for a VIS.
    Generally dislike the idea of putting these in a VIS unless they form a coherent set of, e.g., the same species. For some species a leaf, or the bark may certainly warrant its own scope. Carrots - here the roots are quite relevant, I would say, and the corque(?) (for wine bottles) obtained from the bark of certain trees could certainly warrant a seperate scope as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    Coherent set was assumed, with individual VI exceptions allowable. Lycaon (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lycaon (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Buildings

  • In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture.
    An exception that coes to my mind would be a good illustration of a lighthouse in operation at night ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I think it would illustrate nicely a scope like "operating lighthouse", but not a scope for the building in itself. However I agree that there might be exceptions (buildings that are to be observed by night because it reveals something specific about them... no example in mind). --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not any church is worth a VI. Cathedrals should be OK, for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous (internationally), being architecturally exceptional... Christian architecture is taken as an example, but same rules (or equivalent) should apply to religious buildings of any religion.
    Disagree on the "really famous (internationally)" thing. It is OK that it is only regionally notable, as there are regional Wikimedia projects (the country-specific Wikipedias comes to mind).
    No objection, but is it possible though to be more precise than the "more than local interest" of the current criteria? I feel that some of our recent VIs (my mountain pictures for instance) might be "too local" but we don't have any guidelines to decide that. --Eusebius (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    We can for example decide that a church is notable enough for a VI if there are three (or four? five?) Wikipedia articles about it (in different languages). --Kjetil_r 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think so, apparently we're trying to avoid that kind of condition. Plus, a church (or another building) of only national interest may have only one article in one WP, or even no article at all, and still be valuable as a scope. --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. It is appropriate for a cathedral for instance, with a view of the nave and a view of the facade, but (generally) not for a castle, where inside views are less representative of the building as a whole. Additional scope can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
     Question Is any castle/palace/manor ok? Should we put restrictions? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
     Comment More suggestions? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Works of art

  • Sufficient conditions: being the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any WP, being a seminal work in some way.
     Comment More suggestions? --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Natural sites

  • Sufficient conditions for a mountain: being the main summit of a massif/arc/range, ...
     Comment I think we need guidelines here, but it's quite difficult to be more precise than "having an article on its own on any WP". --Eusebius (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Second session

OK, discussions seem to come to a fixpoint. I summarize them in the following proposal, including the points that haven't been contested. If there is no objection, I will include it in the guidelines after a few days. Feel free to correct my English or phrasing. --Eusebius (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I include the proposal in a "domain-specific scope guidelines" section in COM:VISC. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Second session of discussion -- implemented guidelines

Animals

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official latin name (vernacular name, if applicable)".
  • For some well-known species, sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect of behaviour, as long are they are relevant for Wikimedia projects. In that case the scope should be appended with a short description of the illustrated aspect, i.e. "eggs", "juvenile", "hunting", "mating", "hatching", "flying", "albino"...
  • If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.
  • If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a "male" scope and a "female" scope can be proposed for the same species.
  • A scope directed to a head and body view of an animal may also be considered distinct from a scope covering the full animal since these show different and significant aspects of the species.
  • Subscopes are often relevant to a higher taxonomy level, in which case the precise species is not to be included in the scope. For instance there is a Valued Image for the scope "head of a fly", which basically illustrates the head of any kind of fly.

Plants

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official scientific name (vernacular name, if applicable)".
  • The main scope should show most of the plant (flowers, stem and leaves when applicable).
  • Subscopes can be proposed that focus on fruit, seed, flower, root... as long as they are relevant for Wikimedia projects.
  • Diclinous plants may have a scope for male and a different one for female flowers, as long as they are relevant for Wikimedia projects.

Buildings

  • In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture.
  • Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope.
  • Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... Christian architecture is taken as an example, but the same general rule applies to religious buildings of any religion.
  • When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. It is appropriate for a cathedral for instance, with a view of the nave and a view of the facade, but (generally) not for a castle, where inside views are less representative of the building as a whole. Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).

Works of art

  • Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way.

Natural sites

  • Like any other place, a natural site should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. It is supposed that it is the case if the place has an article on its own on a wikipedia, but there can be many other reasons.
  • A mountain can have a scope on its own for instance if it is the main summit of a massif, arc or range. There can be many other reasons.

Valued images by scope

About only half of the VIs are present in Commons:Valued images by scope, and I can't figure out why. Is there a known/historical reason for that? --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahm, no. It is a surprise for me if the list is incomplete. I do not know what the reason can be. The VICbot should actually reprocess the complete list every time the bot runs. It should do that by scanning through all VIs, extract the scope from the image page, alphabetize them and show them. To resolve this mystery I suggest to initiate a dialogue with the bot operator to unravel, what is going on. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a closer look at it and then ask Dschwen. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

About MVR votes

Hi. I have another metaphysical question about procedures and guidelines. Shouldn't we impose that a reviewer can vote only for one of the candidates of a same MVR, or that only support votes are taken into account? The reason for my suggestion is that some reviewers already do so (+1 for the best, 0 for others), while others (me included) vote for several or all of them (potentially, +1 for the best, -1 for others) which shomehow doubles the influence of their vote (allowing them to artificially break or create a draw). Possible objection: Yes, but it might be interesting to point out significant issues with an oppose, or to express a more subtle opinion with a neutral. This is true I guess, but one of the criteria is "being the most valuable", and as Christophe Lambert would say, "there can be only one". Not being the best one is a sufficient motivation for an oppose, thus I think we can consider that when a support is given to one of the pictures, oppose on others are superfluous. I'd love to have your opinion on this. --Eusebius (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, when the several candidates of an MVR are nominated by distinct users, shouldn't we forbid that any of the nominators vote in the MVR? --Eusebius (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
An example of what I mean: in this recent MVR, Lycaon's vote counts once and Slaunger's vote counts twice. --Eusebius (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As the initiator of VI, it is only fair that my votes have double weight! Nah, just kidding ;-) Interesting question. I'd say keep the existing guidelines. For me, when I do not vote for an image, it may be because I do not feel qualified to take a stand concerning a particular contribution. Other users, could vote for all if they wanted and thus get the same amount of influence on the nomination. The decline votes are important as we need a way to decline all nominations in case a user nominates two images, which do not comply with the criteria in an MVR. If you are not allowed to oppose them, they will be harder to decline. If a single user places a single support on one of them it will be promoted although it would have been declined by oppose votes if it was nominated outside an MVR. --Slaunger (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the right for an MVR nominator to also support an alternative, I am inclined to say that we should not allow that, as it is unbalanced. --Slaunger (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

About regular reviewers voting on several candidates on the same MVR: It's no problem for me as soon as it is clear and there is only one support per reviewer, but it has happened already that several candidates in a single MVR receive support by the same user, which shows, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of the first criterion. --Eusebius (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

PNG vs SVG

I will summarise a discussion at Commons:Valued image candidates/World map of countries by rate of unemployment.png. I nominated a PNG map, although there is an SVG version, which is the one used to edit/make updates etc. After the SVG is made in Inkscape I can simply export the PNG. The problem is that the SVG is shown at a low resolution, so users are unable to see the circles on places such as Hong Kong. The vast majority of users do not have SVG viewers, so they can't download it and zoom in themselves. To avoid this problem, I uploaded a PNG, but at a much higher resolution. This enables viewers to see it in "full resolution" within their Internet browser and thus zoom in enough to view smaller places like Hong Kong. A user during the nomination suggested that I should change the nomination to be for the SVG, whereas I disagree. Jolly Janner (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the SVG is harder to make look good for most users. One of the reasons is the current inadequacies of the embedded svg renderer. Nevertheless I also think it is the svg that should be nominated, although it may not look as good. Here the value of the file has to prevail. A png in any size can always be generated from the svg, the svg will always be the starting point for making further refinements, it is in fact the only file other users can use to make refinements because it has the most true representation of what you are trying to depict. Yeah, this may seem contradictory at first sight and with the renderes we have now. However, we are looking for sustainable value, and in a few years I would guess that the MediaWiki software is better and that most users have better access to better svg viewers. --Slaunger (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change it to the SVG, although it's been opposed anyway. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of the VI galleries

I guess the primary use for the new VI galleries is to improve the visibility of the project and of the promoted VIs. Do you want something similar to the QI project, with the most recently pictures of each (main) gallery displayed on the project page? Or a random selection in each gallery, to keep the idea of the currently displayed "Valued image samples"? Other ideas?

I think replicating the QI approach would be a good idea and an improvement over the "pick four random ones a day" - should be bot-maintained though otherwise we die in maintenance. --Slaunger (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Reviewers are already buried alive under bugs and flowers, bots can work a little bit too. --Eusebius (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, it is also a source of inspiration for new nominations ("Look, we have no minerals, very few chemical coumpounds, etc."). This is really nice. --Eusebius (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is really nice indeed. --Slaunger (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted video

How should we handle things like this? Delete? Rocket000 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say /Science/Physics, or maybe /Objects/Other if we consider it only a weapon. --Eusebius (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, no I mean what to do with incomplete nominations. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually this picture was once declined here. Anyway, I have closed this nomination page as undecided, thanks for spotting it and sorry for mixing your message with the previous discussion. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure or vote needed

Commons:Valued image candidates/Heraldic crowns of France is still open, it's been one week since last vote. Somebody should either add a vote or close the nomination. I prefer not closing it myself as "declined". --Eusebius (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We may get some input from the French heraldic project as well. --Eusebius (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Geocoding criterion

There is a debate here about whether we should reformulate the fifth criterion. --Eusebius (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just added two proposals for a slightly reworded geocoding criterion there. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image categorization

The highlighted parts need further discussion.

I'm glad to inform you that the tools are now here for us to categorize the promoted VIs. It is not totally finished though, we need to discuss some details. Anyway, promoted VIs are dumped at Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, where you can use an online tool to affect them to a gallery, to which they will be dispatched. The parent gallery (transcluding all the subgalleries) is at Commons:Valued images by topic (attention, it is a pretty long page, with ~500 pictures in it).

It is so nice that this is possible now. Thanks!

This part of the project maintenance is performed by EuseBot. It will run daily at 0h30 and 12h30 UTC (to put recently promoted VIs in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted) and at 01h00 and 13h00 UTC (to dispatch categorized VIs in the galleries).

I guess that means a maintainer has 30 mins to categorize a VI if he wants it to be placed in the correct gallery as fast as possible. How about offsetting the dispatch by, say, 6 hours instead at 07h00 and 13h00 (minor detail, really, but just a thought)? --Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I can set the crontab as wanted of course, but anyway unsorted images will remain on the page (they can be sorted anytime). On the QI project sorted images are removed before the new ones arrive, so they stay at least for 24 hours. Well, minor issue anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize that, really no big deal. --Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical note: if a picture is removed from one of the subgalleries (and is not present in another one), it will eventually end up in "recently promoted" again (provided the galleries have been purged). This feature is computationally expensive though, so it might not be done daily in the future. Please contact me if the bot's behaviour is suspicious or if anything goes wrong.

1-n relationships:  Not done
That is a nice feature. Can a VI be categorized to more than one subject? I guess normally it should not be possible, but there are always these special cases where it could be placed in either of two or more categories.--Slaunger (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It is technically possible if the VI is added manually to the "recently promoted" page. I don't think it is a good idea. We should set up the galleries so that any scope can fit into one and only one. We had a discussion about this 1-1 relationship already, archive is now here. Your conclusion then was Besides the simplicity point, there is also an exposure point. Users could be inclined to put own images in several subpages to increase exposure. Let us keep it as a 1-1 relationship and just accept the ambiguities. --Eusebius (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
He, he, thank you for reminding me of my own opinion. Boy, I seemed so much smarter back then... Lets strive for a 1-to-1 relationship then. --Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been through the 550+ existing VIs and dispatched them into the galleries. it allowed me to pinpoint some little problems in the gallery scheme we had previously designed, and I suggest we discuss on the base of this feedback. Anyway, please have a look at the gallery and feel free to question the structure or the way pictures have been categorized. Some VIs are left in the "recently promoted" page because for some reason I couldn't categorize them right now. Should you modify the gallery scheme (by adding/renaming/deleting galleries), don't forget to propagate the changes to MediaWiki:VIhelper.js. Here are the points that, according to me, need a discussion (or mere validation):

Moving root gallery to Commons:Valued images by topic: ✓ Done
Great job. I have tried to go through what you have done. One technical detail, which strikes is that "/All" should really be squeezed in all the page names of the galleries as that would give consistent subpage links to all levels in the hierarchy. Today there are no links to all. Of course that could be added manually, but the right thing would really be a move of all the subpages replacing "Commons:Valued images" by "Commons:Valued images/All". Although it will be tedious to move them all and correct the JScrupt and Python bot code, I think it is worthwhile with respect to navigation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It is the occasion for me to thank you for the time you've spent creating this gallery structure ;-) I guess we should have a root gallery like Commons:Valued images by topic? --Eusebius (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course, Commons:Valued images by topic should be the root. That is much cleaner, and then we avoid an extra "/All" subpage level. --Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

General

Note on Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted: ✓ Done
  • People categorizing VIs should have in mind that this categorization is relative to the scope, not to the picture. For instance, the statue of Cambronne is not in the "statues" gallery because the scope is about the guy, not the statue.
    Agreed. I have added a note to the VI categorization page.
Creation of "/Companies, organizations and institutions": ✓ Done
  • I think we need a gallery for something like "Companies and Institutions" in which we would also put organizations, universities and so on. In which parent gallery would it fit, though?
I don't agree. Companies and institutions can be represented by something else than buildings (we already have a boat representing a company) and, again, galleries should refer to the scope, not to the image subject. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right. It is not easy though to find a suitable parent category. The two that match best are IMO "Places" or "Concepts and ideas". None of then really match though. Din't know what to do about that. --Slaunger (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What about a main gallery "/Companies, organizations and institutions"? --Eusebius (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the foot does not fit into any of the available shoes, yes I think we need to make that shoe for it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete /Microscopic: ✓ Done
I would also get rid of /Microscopic. I think that any scope that would be considered as "microscopic" would also be eligible for inclusion in one of the other sub-galleries. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Activities

  • There are sometimes potential collisions between /Activities/Arts and /Works of art. Please have a look to the choices I've made and react.
/Sports to /Sports and Games: ✓ Done; sport-related objects in /Objects/Sports and Games:  Not done
  • /Activities/Games (or renaming /Sports in /Sports and Games) would be nice.
  • I have put sports-related objects in /Activities/Sports, although they're not "activities". Is it ok with you or do you want them in /Objects/Other?
    • I noted too that they seemed a little odd there as there is not much activity in the objects alone. There could perhaps be a specific /Objects/Sports and Games as well? --Slaunger (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That seemed pretty redundant to me (or at least, not very subtle to create two sub-categories talking about Sports and Games). These objects are really closely related to the activity. Other opinions? --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, lets keep them there then. --Slaunger (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

People

Adding /Religious: ✓ Done; Replacing /Leaders:  Not done
I think what you're proposing is too narrow. Any of them would exclude some existing VIs, and I don't think we should be more precise on that tree. Initially it was /Politics and monarchs, and was extended to /Leaders. (previous discussion on the subject). --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but there's all kinds of leaders in all kinds of fields. We're talking about political leaders (I think). For example, I consider Albert Einstein, Richard Stallman, Martin Luther King Jr., Jean-Paul Sartre, Che Guevara, Sigmund Freud, Darth Vader, Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Jesus, etc. all leaders, but I think Tolstoy belongs under "Artists", Einstein under "Scientists and experts". According to that previous discussion this should define "very influential people, who are not artists, athletes, scientists and experts". "Leaders" is too broad if we're excluding these areas where people do lead. Ok, so influential in what way then? Leading a country or a politically or socially defined group of people, right? What's a good name for that? Or maybe, since it's likely there is no good name for this, it's not a usual classification and we should narrow it down. If we stick to politicians, then there's no question that scientific leaders and religious leaders can go in galleries related to their subject (e.g. science, religion) and not their status at the time. Rocket000 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
It was pretty clear to me at the time that "Leaders" pointed to leaders "of people", not of something abstract (religious, scientific or artistic current). As I said then, it is the term used in the Time classification in their list of influential people and it looked lice a nice pick to me. I don't think we're talking only about political leaders (otherwise Cambronne would be out, he's only a "military" leader), but I honestly didn't foresee a potential inclusion of artists and scientists. --Eusebius (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think "Leaders of people" refers to something abstract even in the way you're using it, unless you mean actual physical leading (like in follow the leader). Are you saying religious and cultural leaders aren't "leaders of people"? Can you clarify what you mean by that? I can't see what else besides political leaders we are grouping together here. (Military leaders are included if you're leading a politically defined body, e.g. a country, into war.) I feel like we're just arguing semantics here, but that's the point, isn't? :) Rocket000 (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, let's discuss semantics. Here I think of a leader as somebody having authority over a well-defined set of people. A military officer, a country or region ruler, a noble in the Old Regime fall in this category. An politician without a mandate (somebody influencial but with no formal authority) doesn't, I guess. Now, what's authority, is a bishop a leader, is the current Duke of Edinburgh a leader, is my boss a leader?? :-P Maybe I can suggest "/Politics, nobles and rulers", perhaps it is better defined? Perhaps it is too long as a title? I'm afraid we might realize in the future that it is too specific. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
By political, I don't mean just politicians. I mean anything involving states, countries, borders, governmental bodies, law, etc. See wikt:leader. You are using definition 1 (specifically the 2nd part), I am thinking of both definitions 1 and 2. However, I'll agree the first is the most common sense. So let's ignore the 2nd definition—scientists and artists are out, but what about people like Pope John Paul II, Martin Luther King, and Mohandas Gandhi? TIME calls them "Leaders and Revolutionaries". But they could also be /People/Religious and... /People/Social? It's these leaders of thought (religion, philosophy, ethics), that I'm concerned about. Religion is kinda easy to separate, but not always. Vatican city? The Crusades? Islamic states? Hindu nationalism? The pope has authority over a well-defined set of people. So does Muhammad. The social and cultural (excluding art) leaders are basically the same type of leaders. That is, leaders of people defined by belief. We want these people separate from kings and presidents, right? Rocket000 (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, some religious leaders are also heads of state or military leaders, so they would be borderline cases. Your Gandhi example is interesting, I think I would leave it in /Other. Do you have a proposal for the replacement of /Leaders, in the light of all we've said? --Eusebius (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No. :P Rocket000 (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
On that note, I guess I can live with /Leaders and /Other for now. Rocket000 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Replacing "/People at work" by /Activities/Occupations: ✓ Done
Or even "/Activities/Occupations" instead? --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That would work too. Rocket000 (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have second thoughts about this one, why "Occupations"? It doesn't look specific enough to me, isn't a game or a sport an occupation? --Eusebius (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Occupation is the same as a job or career (synonyms: employment, profession, vocation, day job). It's what you do for a living. As a native English speaker I never heard it refer to a game or sport (if the scope was "athlete" or "professional football player", then yes). See en:List of occupations. Rocket000 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, wasn't sure about that. --06:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Objects

Add /Musical, delete /Aerial trams and /Steam powered: ✓ Done
  • I think we need a /Objects/Musical, for both musical instruments and music-related objects. We already have some, and I know some users (including me) plan to submit more.
  • Do we really need /Vehicles/Aerial trams? Isn't it enough to have /Vehicles/Railway?
  • /Vehicles/Steam powered looks too transversal to me. I say delete it and dispatch in /Railway, /Boats, /Whatever.

Places

Create /Buildings/Institutional: ✓ Done
  • I'd like a gallery for buildings related to civil authorities, like town halls, parliaments and so on. Suggestions for a gallery title?
But here the scopes are about the buildings, not the institutions themselves. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
How about simply "Government buildings"? It's narrower than I's like, but this would include: town halls, police stations, fire depts., prisons, palaces, parliament houses... the trouble comes when you get to schools, museums, libraries, and things like that, which are sometimes government buildings and sometimes not. But you're just talking about places related to authority, so we should be fine. Maybe have a look at Category:Buildings by function for ideas. Rocket000 (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think /Buildings/Government should be fine (even though I think it's not perfect, some of them are not systematically under the authority of a "government" if we take it in an institutional sense). Museums and libraries would go under /Buildings/Cultural, and school, well... Cultural as well? --Eusebius (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
How about just Buildings/Institutional. That would separate it (a little) from institutions and then we would not have a problem with the schools, museums, libraries,...? --Slaunger (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds nice. --Eusebius (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Create /Buildings/Cultural and /Places/Other, delete /Buildings/Historical: ✓ Done
    • Speaking of which, I think we need yet another gallery, called, e.g., "Cultural buildings" for theatres, sports stadiums, operas. I found three current images which I think are better placed in such a gallery, They are:
      1. Activities->Arts:Kubaki theatre
      2. Activities->Sports: Eric Weissel Oval (since sports is under activities, and sports facilities are not really activities)
      3. Activities->Sports: Olympic Park Munich. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
OK --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • /Buildings/Historical is rather ill-defined. What is a "historical" building? Most of the pictures in the existing gallery could be present in others (like /Religious buildings and shrines) and almost every castle or church could be considered "historical". I say delete the gallery.
  • We probably need /Places/Other, for instance for man-made places which are not buildings. I'm thinking of the open pit mine picture or of the Champ de Mars.

Biology

Fixes in categorization: ✓ Done (or to be done some time)
  • Some general remarks:
  1. Could all species names be italicized (Genus and species)? Regardless of the italics in the scope. I think it is a must.
I would rather correct the scopes, once I can do that bot-wise. --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Afterwards is fine. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. A few critters are in the wrong categories (e.g. Lygaeus equestris is a bug, Chthamalus barnacles are crustaceans and Cynomorium coccineum is a plant, not a fungus. Lycaon (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, will correct that. --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete /Animals/Mammals/Zoo: ✓ Done
Do a bunch of nasty, intricated, cross-referenced changes: ✓ Done
  • Some animal-related concepts are not limited to a taxo subtree, like "Phoretic commensalism". A gallery /Animals/Other could probably help. Or should we put them in /Concepts and ideas ? Or in /Science/Medicine, biology and biotechnology?
    • I'd say in the /Medicine, biology and biotech. I think pharyngeal jaws should go there as well, as it described an anatomical feature (which is not specific to fish)--Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
If so, then almost all the scopes in /Plants/Terminology would also be candidates for this sub-gallery... --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps better to make a new parallel Animals/Terminology instead in analogy with Plants/Terminology? --Slaunger (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be my choice. --Eusebius (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We need either /Animals/Annelida or /Animals/Other (but we have a significant number of them already).
  • We need either /Animals/Myriapoda or /Animals/Other.
  • We need either /Animals/Cephalochordata or /Animals/Other.
    • No opinion as I have little knowledge of these taxonomic groups. --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • We should use common names wherever possible. It won't always make a nice title (e.g. /Arthropods/Grasshoppers, crickets, mantis, bugs, etc. (Hemipterodea)) but it's better that people know what we're talking about (Although, scientific names do have the benefit of being somewhat more language-neutral). Arthropods is fine, but I'm not sure Annelida, Myriapoda, and Cephalochordata. --Rocket000(talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest creating only "/Animals/Worms (Annelida)", "/Animals/Arthropods/Centipedes and Millipedes (Myriapoda)" and /Animals/Other (based on the number of existing VIs). I'd like to have Lycaon's input here. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Bugs (Hemiptera) should have their own branch too (their will be many more). Cephalochordata can go with Animals/other maybe, but I personally am not to fond of any 'other' category. Lycaon (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
OK for Hemiptera, there are already quite a number of them. So, no /Animals/Other category, only explicit taxonomy? --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The distinction between /Plants/Flowers and /Plants/Whole plants (for instance) is a bit weird. Is /Plants/Flowers for species that are flowers, or for scopes limited to the inflorescence of a species? I think we need further debate on the /Plants subtree for this matter.
I'd be quite ok with /Plant/Anatomy, /Plant/Trees, /Plant/Flowers and /Plant/Terminology. Should we precise things in /Plant/Anatomy? --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I know what is wrong now with the plants categories. It is the subdivision in between plant parts. Say you were looking for VI of Category:Asterales, where would you look? You would have to look in all plant parts galleries. Why do we not instead make a taxonomical breakdown exactly as we have been done for the animals? I do not know exactly how the breakdown should be as there are many parts of the plants taxonomical tree, which I am unfamiliar with. We could ask CarolSpears for advice concerning a suitable subdivision as she is doing substantial work in this area, and she has a good feeling of the abundancy of media in varius subgroups and she is also familiar with categorization of QIs? If we do that could be then not merge Plants/Anatomy into Plants/Terminology?--Slaunger (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • With a taxonomical breakdown it is also quite easy to later add more specialized galleries (go down a detail level in the taxo tree), if existing galleries becomes overpopulated. --Slaunger (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would lump all plants, flowers and trees together but subdivide them taxonomically as is done with Animals. That would be much more logical. Plant anatomy is not weird and better than Plant parts. Lycaon (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have drawings of plant anatomy yet? The differences in plants is what the taxonomy circumscription is based on. Drawings and (wrong word perhaps, but...) schematics should naturally fall into the upper levels (greater than familia) of the plant taxonomy tree. -- carol (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok to have a gallery with only one additional taxonomy level under Plantae? What is the name of that level? How many sub-galleries would there be? In Category:Plantae I can see "genus", "clade", "division"... --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would start with two categories (from here, namely Seed Plants and Ferns and Club Mosses, the other two can be added when applicable). Further division may become useful soon when the cats become crowded and then we may add Pinophyta (conifers) and a spade of Magnoliophyte orders (classes may be to little familiar).
For the sake of clarity (read "for the sake of my understanding of the issue"), I would create the four galleries: "/Seed plants", "/Ferns and club mosses (Pteridophytes)", "/Bryophytes" (any suggestion for the common name?) and "/Green algae". And then sub-galleries for divisions of Seed plants when needed. So, with such a tree, would we put sub-scopes (leafs, flowers, fruit...) in their taxo tree or in /Plants/Anatomy? --Eusebius (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The sub-scopes would normally go in the taxo galleries (as would an image of the eyes of a wolf, or the teeth of a tiger in the animal tree). Things like a generic scheme of a leaf could go in /Plants/Anatomy, but that will be pretty sparse gallery. Thus, I suggest we bring it together in one Plants/Terminology (exactly as is done woth the animals). --Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, so: the four main taxo galleries under /Plants, plus /Plants/Terminology? --Eusebius (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, though the third (Mosses and Liverworts (Bryophyta)) and fourth (Algae) have as yet no members. Lycaon (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If I remember well, fungi and lichen have been recently taken out of the Plantae regnum. I guess somebody would like /Fungi and /Lichen out of /Plants? Do we create a gallery for living (or almost living) species which are neither animals nor plants?
At least it have been aware of that only recently (but the reference about it on en.WP is from 2006). Anyway, I'm not a specialist at all. What about a sub-gallery like "/Other living beings", "/Other species" or something like that, containing fungi, lichen, protists and bacteria? --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess this will all come out naturally if we make a general taxonomical breakdown of the galleries. Don't know though if there are any issues about selecting a particular taxonomical system. --Slaunger (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fungi and Lichen indeed should not be under plants. Lichen are a bit complicated but are best arranged under Fungi as there heterotroph part is often used for taxonomy. Lycaon (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"/Fungi and lichen" there? What would be the root gallery for all living beings? "/Life forms"? --Eusebius (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
"/Life forms" sounds good to me. Lycaon (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no sub-category of "/Seed plants", but most images will come here. I have little knowledge of biology, so I won't propose anything. ;o) Yann (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Works of art

Renaming /Works of art:  Not done
  • Could be renamed to simply "Art". We can hold off on the "/Other" page for now if we move the only image there to "/Performing arts". "/Paintings and pictorial arts" should be renamed to "/Visual art". Rocket000(talk) 00:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Renaming to "Art" collides with "Activities/Art", which perhaps should be separated (or not?). I would definitely keep "/Other", the VI here is about the literature work and not the performance (I'm not sure we should create /Performing arts nor /Literature, for it is unlikely that we get many VIs for this). I'm ok with /Visual art. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, you're right. "Works of art" is purposely named. Art the activity should be separate. Oil pastels, collage, and lithography should be separate from Mona Lisa, Beethoven's Fifth, and Hamlet. And I guess /Other is the best choice for now. Rocket000 (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Concepts and ideas

I think we need two new galleries here.

  1. /Architectural for, e.g., Edwardian architecture, Green roof --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bit narrow. We could then create sub-galleries for any possible art (and it is a quite open set). I could live with /Artistic, but it would be the third art-related category. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. /Scientific and technological --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I would stick to the /Science subtree for that, maybe after making it /Science and technology and adding a sub-gallery. --Eusebius (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Where are we on these two? --Eusebius (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All in all, it is quite close to what we want. Fine tuning, really. --Slaunger (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your input. --Eusebius (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Eusebius for making the discussion so nice and easy to follow. Rocket000 (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scope questions

Hello,

  1. What should be the scope for Category:Stamps? By country (seems too broad)? By stamp (seems too narrow)?
  2. What should be the scope for Mohandas K. Gandhi (see categories and sub-categories)?

Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

About stamps: for a very famous timbre (like the French Cérès, maybe, or the most old/expensive ones) an individual scope might be warranted. Otherwise... Stamp is a nice scope, but I guess it would be almost impossible to decide which image is the most representative and valuable.
About Gandhi: for personalities, limit the scope to the name, without subscope (unless you have a very good reason: there's no guideline about that, but I would be very opposed to adding subscopes to personalities). Mohandas K. Gandhi is fine. Disclaimer: these are only opinions and suggestions. --Eusebius (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree. One per person. Rocket000 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Links in the scope

I think it should be nice to have a word in COM:VISC about the links in the scope. I suggest the following rules (with an example for each line):

  • If there is a Commons gallery, link to it;
  • Otherwise, if there is an article on the English Wikipedia, link to it;
  • Otherwise, don't link.
  • Try to limit yourself to one link per scope, if possible;
  • Try to avoid linking to a redirection page or a page with a very different title.

+ a word about our intention to internationalize the links to the different wikipedias, in order to justify our linking to en:WP. Any comments? --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we link to Commons categories if there is no gallery nor article? --Eusebius (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Without opinions, I would include it in the guidelines within a few days, and take this (and other scope guidelines) as a basis for reformulating existing scopes. I will set up a bot for that (in an undefinite future), because it has to be done in a number of places in order to keep everything consistent. --Eusebius (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No objections, I update the guidelines (with no references to categories). --Eusebius (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need for these suggestions beyond linking to the Commons gallery and/or a sister project article. I think we should encourage linking to articles of any sister project. I don't know much about "our intention to internationalize the links to the different wikipedias", but perhaps it would be best to wait for implementation before considering this stricture. Why limit the number of links? I like to look at all the sister project articles even though I'm fluent only in English. If the interwiki links of the Commons gallery page (or category) are defined and current, I can access the sister projects that way, but I think it is convenient and does no harm, if they are given in the nom. I worry a bit about discouraging new users with too many rules and I'm concerned that more important matters may be overlooked. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with linking to Commons categories either. For other links I prefer they are in English as we do hope to setup a localization framework, such that the scopes can be localized to other languages. That is a thought I came up with a long time ago, I hope I will soon have the time to actually do something about it. But for the time being I basically agree with Walter that we should not impose it as a rule to expect all users will follow. It is not a catastrophe to link to a non-English suster project in a scope written in English, especially if there is more substance in how the scope is adressed on that sister project as compared to on the English Wikipedia. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so I suggest this reformulation (two lines added):

  • Try to limit yourself to one link per scope, if possible. Only the most specific part of the scope should be linked;
  • If there is a relevant Commons gallery, link to it;
  • If there is a relevant Commons category, link to it;
  • Otherwise, if there is an article on the English Wikipedia, link to it;
  • Otherwise, if there is an article on another Wikipedia, link to it;
  • Otherwise, don't link;
  • Try to avoid linking to a redirection page or a page with a very different title.

Opinions? --Eusebius (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the two lines to the guidelines within 48 hours, in the absence of further comments. --Eusebius (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sub-categories for seed plantes

Hello,

(reposting) There is no sub-category of "/Seed plants", but most images will come here. Actually most uncategorized images are in this category: Commons:Valued_images/Recently_promoted. I have little knowledge of biology, so I won't propose anything. ;o) Yann (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

When are species subscopes warranted?

Discussion moved to here from Commons talk:Valued image scope for broader attention. --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  •  Question How do you determine notability of a plant, or of any species for that matter. Why is a seed and leaves-scope acceptable, but a flowers- or habitus-scope not? The phrase as long as they are relevant for wikimedia projects can be widely interpreted: e.g. it can mean → we don't want a separate seed scope unless it is a commercial food crop, or → seed scopes are always ok as we may envision a botanipedia in the future. This should be more unbiased. Like we don't want plenty MVR's after Eusebius, Lycaon and Slaunger have taken three weeks of simultaneous holidays... ;-)) Lycaon (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment that is indeed a good question, and the answer is subjective. In this case I judge the notability on an interpreation of how interesting users of Wikimedia projects would consider it to be. Commonly known species, which play a role in society as food, for manufacturing, clothes, construction, decoration, medical treatment, etc. are in my opinion "notable" enough to warrant a subscope. I admit it is not easy, and a botanist would perhaps say that all species are equally relevant. And I am also raising the bar as compared to the cut I had 6 months ago. This is related to the recent precisions, which have been made in COM:VISC in the plants section, where the general rule is now scopes on the species level with exception for subscopes when relevant for WMF projects. I am a little bit torn about this, as especially photos of the entire plant is often not suitable for identification of the species, and certainly not at review size. Rather at the species level, a scheme is better for illustrating it. Maybe the best thing would be to open a discussion about it at COM:VIC to discuss if we need to be even more specific about what we write in COM:VISC. I am a little concerned that the VI system can be flooded with nominations which only a minor fraction of potential VI repository users would find interesting, if we allow too detailed scopes. --Slaunger (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Copied the above discussion from one of the candidate pages.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment To me, the relevant question is value. A subscope is merited if it is a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic of the species according to the relevant literature. To relieve the concern that VI will be flooded with nominations of little relevance, a citation may be requested, in non-obvious instances. I think it will enhance the value of the collection to emphasize distinguishing features and characteristics. For plants, these may include the flowers, sepals, fruit, leaves, thorns, or other parts. Flowers are over-represented because they are attractive and eye-catching, but may not distinguish one species from another. Among Lupinus (or Penstemon) species, for example, the leaf may be more helpful. I agree that photos of the entire plant may not be useful. For Abies, cone and leaf photographs are more useful. 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • One thing I can't figure out is the relation between photos and schemes of plants. Often it is not possible to grasp all te important features of a plant species with a single photograph, thus pointing to the direction of accepting subscopes. On the other hand, a good scheme can shoow all the important aspects of a species in a single image. So what do we do if we have promoted an imge of the flower, leaves, and seed of a specific species, and a scheme of the the species becomes available which shows everything in a single image. Now we have the MVR process but that is only to let images of the exact same scope compete. Should we allow MVRs which competes with (and can absorb) subscope VIs as well, or should we just let the subscope VIs keep their VI tag, although the species scheme VI may be better at illustrating, e.g., the leaves also? --Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess it wouldn't shock me to keep both the "whole plant" scope and one or more characteristic and significant subscopes. --Eusebius (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • By "scheme", I think you mean what I might call an "illustration", "painting" or "drawing". Since it is difficult to compare photographs and illustrations and they often serve different purposes in articles, I think that they should have separate scopes. I fear that to do otherwise may lead to pointless arguments over which is superior. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider a concrete example, e.g., Packera_paupercula and its corresponding article, en:Packera_paupercula. I wouldn't know how to compare the illustrations to the photographs. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I find it hard as well, but when reviewing a VIC with a species scope, when there is both an adequate illustration and a photo available, you have to make a pick (as we have not yet considered illustration/photograph subscopes, and i do not think we should). Here, I frequently find that the good illustration is better at illustrating the species scope than a photo of the whole plant. --Slaunger (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Currently on Commons, most species have zero or one illustration and several photographs. While I see no point in promoting an illustration if it is the only one available, I favor an illustration subscopewhen more than illustration exists. One of my field guides says, "Photographs are perceived as accurate .... [but] [d]ifferences in lighting or pose of similar species can make it difficult ... for direct comparisons to be made." (ISBN 0-300-10360-3) I see no benefit to Commons to spend our time and energy debating this matter. Let's recognize both artwork and photographs and leave it to the editors of the sister projects to decide which to use. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry but I think this remark is a negation of all the VI project is (or maybe I don't understand well what you mean). It is specifically about promoting one image for each scope (here we discuss what the scope should be), not an open set of usable images for a scope. We're not comparing photographers, nor photographs, and saying which one is good or not (this would be more the QI project), or at least it is not the main point here. We choose the most valued. If there is only one picture, it is the most valued, no problem with that. --Eusebius (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
              • In response to your objection, I struck comments above that are peripheral to my suggestion. I apologize if my comments were thought unhelpful. To be clear, I should like to avoid the potential of bitter arguments over the merit of artwork as compared with photography by considering the two classes separately. But, perhaps I have too jaundiced a view of my fellows... Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
                • Don't apologize, feel free to express yourself. I though I should react to your phrasing, this is it. It is useful to share about how we view the project, but I guess it's difficult to be final about how we analyse it (sorry if I sounded bitter, which I'm not at all). --Eusebius (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you nail down the issue pretty well, Walter. I think we should adjust the scope guidelines for plants and animals that it is pointed out that subscopes are accepted if it is depicting a distinguising or notable characteristics of the species according to relevant literature. --Slaunger (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Now that I think about it, a species is not that good of a scope in a lot of cases. For example, I recently nominated a moth. How would I know what the caterpillar form looks like from that? What about species where the male and female are vastly different? Or when the fruit, say an apple, is more important than the flowering stage of the tree? I think we need to let the nature and significance determine the scope, not the taxonomic tree. It's relative. All species are not equally valuable to us. The best example is how we are handling the species homo sapiens. :) Rocket000 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • A related discussion occurred on another one of the candidate pages.[2] Eusebius said, "I see a VI (in the context of an encyclopedia) more like a good candidate for being the header image of an article, not just a good illustration of a part of it." I said, "My inclination is to accommodate relatively narrow scopes. At its worst, an article writer will have to select from among a few VI illustrations and that isn't much of a disadvantage." Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In spite of my quote (which was a reference more to narrow scopes than to subscopes), I'm pretty ok with the phrasing: "A subscope is merited if it is a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic of the species according to the relevant literature." and probably the idea behind it. I don't care about a leaf subscope for a marguerite, but maybe for a maple tree it makes sense. --Eusebius (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Based on the discussion here, I propose the following adjustments in the plants domain specific scope guidelines (striked out is a proposed deletion, additions are in bold)

Plants

  • General rule is: one scope per species, in the form: "official scientific name (vernacular name, if applicable)".
  • The main scope should show most of the plant (flowers, stem and leaves when applicable).
  • Plant part subscopes (fruit, seed, flower, leaves, etc.) can be proposed with the purpose of illustrating a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic of the species not apparent on species images. If needed, subscope nominations can be substantiated by references to the relevant literature.that focus on fruit, seed, flower, root... as long as they are relevant for Wikimedia projects.
  • Diclinous plants may have a scope for male and a different one for female flowers, if they are visually distinct., as long as they are relevant for Wikimedia projects.
    • Feel free to fiddle around with it, as I do not think it is quite spot on yet. Like, the second item has a rather long text now. Do we really need to specifically state that we may require literature references, or is that sort of implied from the first sentence? I feel that if we begin asking for references we are also narrowing down those who can actually review the images to those who have access to the relevant literature. Like, if Lycaon nominates an image with a plant part subscope, and I asked what is specific about it, I would generally trust the validity of the answer, and not ask for references to substantiate it. If we can agree on a change like that we should probably implement a similar adjustment to the animals domain scopes as well. But lets try to agree on this one first. --Slaunger (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments

I had a go at copyediting the above. I'm not sure that I improved it, but perhaps a phrase or two may be helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The main scope should show most of the plant (flowers, stem and leaves when applicable). Its purpose is to convey to the reader a visual impression of the plant and to illustrate some of its salient features.
  • Subscopes, e.g., flower, fruit, seed, leaves, etc., may be proposed. A subscope illustrates a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic not well-depicted in the main scope images. A subscope without a reliable source citation may be challenged and rejected. Subscopes are usually appropriate for visually distinct diclinous plants.
I think your copyedit is an improvement. Especially the breakup of my long sentence in item 2. I still think we need the part from the existing first item specifying how the scope should be written. Alternatively (since this is really an implementation detail), examples of a main scope and a subscope name could be given at the end. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Please see the rewrite below. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The main scope for most plants is at the species level. Exceptionally, it may be the genus if species are not visually distinct, or at the subspecies, variety or cultivar if visually distinct and notable. The main scope should give the reader an overall impression of the plant. Usually, it will show most of the plant (flowers or fruit, stem and leaves when applicable).
  • Subscopes, e.g., flower, fruit, seed, leaves, etc., may be proposed. A subscope illustrates a distinguishing feature or notable characteristic not well-depicted in main scope images. A subscope without a reliable source citation may be challenged and rejected. Subscopes are usually appropriate for visually distinct diclinous plants.
  • Scope format: ''[[scientific name]]'' (vernacular name) [, subscope], e.g., Cupressus nootkatensis (Nootka cypress), cone and foliage. The vernacular name may be omitted if not found. Subscope is omitted for main scope nominations.
Very good. Just right! I have no further comments. We should get the feedback from a few others and then do the same exercise for animals (should be basically the same, I guess?) --Slaunger (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes! Rocket000 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No opposition to the latest version. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Any more comments? --Eusebius (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
COM:VISC updated accordingly. --Eusebius (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Meaningful title

Should we add in the 4th criterion that the image should have a meaningful title? --Eusebius (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but the main problem is usually with titles meaningless in any language, like camera-generated file names, or totally irrelevant titles like for some Flickr imports. --Eusebius (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. The issue is not about language. There is no problem to have a name in Chinese, if the image is about China, or Arabic, if it is about the Arabic world, etc. Hopefully this will be soon easy to fix when image renaming is enabled. What I propose for VIC is:
  1. No camera-generated names.
  2. No pseudo/Commons contributor's name in the image name.

Yann (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

  •  Comment - While I agree that all files should have some meaningful name (at least for some people), making it a criterion is not really necessary, as the subject is fully identified in the summary and categories. IMO it is enough to have a recomendation in the guidelines. Remember that having "DSC65xx34" or "ping&%$ping" (in some unknown language) is almost exactely the same. As for the requirement that the name of the creator should not be part of the title, I can't see the reason for it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Alvesgaspar. Titles aren't part of what makes an image valuable. Yes, I hate camera names too, but I'd rather have that than something even less intelligible and basically impossible for me to type like a right-to-left script, but I'm ok with that too. If the name is really poor than it should be renamed because of the broader Commons policy that's not unique to VICs—it applies to any image we come across. Same goes for "creator should not be part of the title". That's almost like saying we need a criterion banning watermarks. These are general enough that they apply to all images (although, unlike watermarks, most people don't care enough to reupload the image). Rocket000 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would not give too much weight to the file name as long as it is not outright misleading/confusing. Thus, an image depicting Saxifraga nivalis should not be another species name, e.g., Saxifraga oppositifolia. After all its main purpose is to be a unique ID for referring to the image;-) I do not see any problem with having the creators user name or another creator-specific substring as part of the file name. Having such "signatures" is a very useful way to track down the most obvious license violations when, e.g., third parties shamelessly reusing photos without attribution or restating the license and without even bothering to change the file name. It is also a useful method for avoiding name clashes with existing files. I know about Tineye and stuff, but I have used this low-tech method to track down several reuses of my photos, which were not properly attributed/had no proper license tag. I have also used that to find proper reuses in contexts which were surprising and in which I had never envisioned a photo of mine could be used. That is a rewarding aspect of having something specific in the file name like the creators name. --Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand your concern about reuse. This discussion has come after I have asked that these images to be renamed: File:Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg, File:ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg. In these cases, the name contains no meaningful indication about the place. I feel it inappropriate for images which are nominated for their VALUE. I would not request this if the images are nominated for their QUALITY. Personally, I think puting the contributor's name in the file's name just promotes one's ego. I see that others disagree... Yann (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Commons talk:Valued image candidates the right place?

I suggest we move the main discussion board of the project to Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list. Of course it is farther from the main page of the project, but nominators would automatically watch it, which is not the case with this page. I think it would encourage involvement in the project-related discussions, like guidelines improvements. --Eusebius (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Any comments? --Eusebius (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonale idea and then this page should redirect to the cancidates list subpage talkpage. --Slaunger (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bot info

VICbot is currently prevented from working normally due to a growing toolserver replag (on all Commons replicas, switching is useless). Some clever guys are working on it. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Eusebius (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luckily, value is outdated in a few days, so we will survive, but thanks for informing us (I was beginning to wonder what was happening). --Slaunger (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2 only - is it acceptable?

There is currently a lot of turmoil concerning images licensed to GFDL 1.2 only and we have a current example of a VIC licensed to GFDL 1.2 only. See also

I read somewhere that German Wikipedia no longer allowed the inclusion of GFDL 1.2 only (or did they just deprecate their use?) and on en no GFDL 1.2 only images may be uploaded. Since one of the aims of VI is to collect images of value for online use in all Wikimedia projects, I am beginning to wonder if that license in itself means they should not be promotable for VI - if the license alone means that they cannot be used on all Wikimedia projects, it is against the underlying idea. I am not really knowledgeable in this realm though, but I'd like to hear some opinions. --Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The reason why en does not allow GFDL 1.2 only is probably so as to migrate the images to commons. I don't see why free valuable material should be barred from being used for the sake of other than wiki --Muhammad (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No. I think it is because with the GFDL 1.3, everything on Wikimedia can be migrated to CC-BY-SA, which seams to be direction the Foundation is heading (as far as I understand). --Slaunger (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
(ec) GFDL 1.2 is still an acceptable license on Commons, I don't see the problem. I'm not a specialist, but I don't see the Wikipedias suddenly stopping to use any media not compatible with their new license. The media have always been licensed separately from the text, and I don't think the current license change implies that all non-CC-BY-SA-3.0 stuff be not usable anymore. Furthermore, I'm not sure it's the better place to talk about it, since you only get the ungrounded opinion of people like me, maybe you should go to COM:L. As far as the VI project is concerned, there is no criterion about licensing, so as soon as it is an accepted license, I see no problem. --Eusebius (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is probably not the best place to discuss this, it is a comunity discussion, and VIC should simply comply with Commons community licensing policies. The caveat with GFDL 1.2 only is that it is seen as a backdoor non-commercial license by many, as in practical terms it is very tedious to comply with the GFDL 1.2 in reuse. Until there is a community consensus I remain my right to dislike the license though and restate my disliking of it, but I will not let it affect my voting;-) --Slaunger (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From what has been said here: GFDL 1.2 only is not a problem. They will not be affected by the license migration (they wont automatically get a CC-BY-SA license), but we can still use them in the WPs, just like the stuff tagged with {{FAL}}, {{WTFPL}} or any other (free) license accepted on Commons. Media will still be declared as possibly licensed under a different license scheme. --Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Validity of visibly undistinguishable scopes

Premise

For organisms a scope can be valid when the organism is visually distinctive from other taxa. Images of some substances like metals or powders can be anything. What matter is not the believe that the substance is what it pretends to be (AGF, so we do believe the nominator by default), but the fact that it is visibly distinguishable. A picture of a white powder, e.g. could be sugar, talc, or cocaine for that matter.

Discussion

(copied from a VIC candidate)

  • Hmm... Isn't this a very pricipal statement, which we first ought to discuss in general? What you are basically saying, is that if images of scopes are not visually distinct, they are not relevant to nominate. While I do see, that this seems consistent with what we have agreed upon for living organisms, I also have quite some dramatic side-effects. E.g., I do not feel sure there could not be a VI of each element although some of them may look visually similar. Concerning sugar vs cocaine I see a point in not being able to see a big difference in the powders alone. What could distinguish them, could be other objects alongside, like sugar cubes together with sugar, and the silver(?) tube, razor blade and small mirror together with the cocaine (sorry, I know this is irrelevant for this nomination). Perhaps, the good VI for elements would be a lump of the element shown alongside with some application, which is unique for the element, be it some laser application, some radar application, as radiation source in medical physics, etc.? --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that if the image shows well how the scope looks like, then the image is OK. It doesn't matter if several scopes look quite similar, i.e. these chemical elements. Yann (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Your last suggestions sound reasonable. Maybe we should suspend these element noms and first discuss modalities. Lycaon (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not a lot of activity in this discussion, I see. I have thought about it and I think there is some reason in extending the idea of requiring that an illustration of a scope should be visually distinct from other scopes. I think that sort of follows from the idea that the image should be a good illustration of the scope. So bringing up Lycaons example with a pile of sugar, cocaine and talc, isolated piles of these materials would not qualify as being good illustrations of the scope. Rather, the illustration should be have a context for instance by showing the substance in use or together with other objects from which the real nature of the substanbce can be inferred. E.g, sugar could be shown together with sugar cubes, or perhaps together with the sugar sources such as sugar canes and sugar beets. Talc could be shown together with a can of baby powder, the chalk used by a taylor or with the hands of a gymnast submerged in talc to avoid slipping. Cocaine could be illustrated as used when taking the drog including the accessories used.
This discussion originally started with some illustrations of some elements with photos of elements, of which some look quite similar. Can each of these then be VI assuming each of them are the best photo of the element? I doubt it. Can there then not be one VI for each element? Yes I think there can but then again, each element would have to be put in a context where it can be distinguished from other elements, for instance applications where the elements are used, an atomic model showing its atomic structure or its solid state crystal structure. --Slaunger (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the VI project has already quite high requirements, which leads to very little activity. By increasing the requirements, the project will be nearly stalled. I think the important point is the best image we have. I agree that some context could be better, but the examples you give are quite impossible to be done by non professionals, therefore we may never get them. Meanwhile I think it is important that the project gets more dynamic and that more images are promoted. We can always promote a better image later. Yann (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not think the requirements are that high. 58% of all nominated images are promoted, which is a reasonably high fraction in my opinion, and as I see it we have quite a few nominations. I think the main reason for not having more nominations is that nominators can see on the review page that almost all nominations are unassessed and have been so for quite some time. I do think you have a good and valid point concerning the best we have though and that we have the review process for later promoting even better images of the same scope. It is only good if some users sees a VI showing some pile of talc and says, hell, I can do that much better, uploads the image and opens an MVR and gets the VI for that scope. So, I think you have convinced me into softening some of my statements there and allowing some room as to how similar illustrations of different scopes can be. Concerning the elements, I would still have to require that the images should be representative illustrations of how the elements and have, e.g., a color matching their official color. --Slaunger (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_5&oldid=303820595"