Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 8

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

Neither support nor opposition

May I ask the reasons why images for mollusca and insects are readily supported, while other images, like the one of an aircraft I nominated, gains neither support nor opposition, and don't even get a comment? Is there any bias for promoting some sort of images?--Jetstreamer (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a problem we have periodically. We have only a few active reviewers and they have a specific range of interests. If your picture falls outside that range, it may not get reviewed. We had a similar problem a few months ago with a user who submitted images of horses. Three suggestions: 1) You can participate by reviewing the work of others, especially those images that lack reviews. They may be inclined to reciprocate. 2) Be patient and resubmit. The set of reviewers changes monthly. 3) Try COM:FPC or COM:QI. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this point. I am very uncomfortable to see the airplane and the horse without comment. This is a subject very close and I remember having voted for boats of a naive way that was false statement. I vowed to vote only in dommaines of my skills. For the plane I am having trouble understanding how to vote for an image which will represent all of the airline.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes you all are right, and I personally feel very sorry about that. But the world of aircrafts is very specialized, and I think I'm really completely full incompetent. Maybe could you ask some other users (Russavia for instance, or some other Commons:WikiProject Aviation/Members) to have a look in the VIC page ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

I wonder if FPC/QIC/VIC people is aware of this photo contest -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Promoting SET

It seems that the promotion of Set is blocked. An administrator can he break the deadlock? Thank you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The same seems to be with the Most Valued Reviews section. It is also blocked.--MrPanyGoff 08:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to proceed with the closed nominations manually.--MrPanyGoff 09:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Video ?

Should we accept now videos in the VI project ?--Jebulon (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've listed related discussions below. The most recent occurred a year ago. It may be fruitful to review this history. Are there new points to consider? Have any participants changed their views? In reading discussion 4, my impression is that an expansion would require the effort and skill of someone like Slaunger. Volunteers? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_1#Various_Points
  2. Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_2#Valued_videos.3F
  3. Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_4#Sounds
  4. Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_6#Videos_revisited_and_on_the_history_of_VI

Ad images to a set

Is it possible to ad this image to this VI set? Or do I have to make a new set nomination? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. The upgrading of the sets is something that needs a discussion. It is a quite reasonable.--MrPanyGoff 09:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

VIS representation

Observing the situation in the VI project, I would like to start some campaigns in order to make the project better place and weighty source of knowledge and information as well as to rise its popularity.

The first thing is about the Sets. At the moment, after promoting them, the Sets fall into oblivion. Every time when I nominate a set, I approach with some reluctance. The sets are not represented well that's why there is reluctance. So, I have a suggestion:

  • The sets to be represented with a single photograph in the Commons:Valued images page galleries. We can call this image: a „Title image“. It can be appointed initially by the nominator or during the VIS closure by the executor of the closure, no matter.

Since the closure of the sets is a manual procedure, we can start this immediately after reaching an agreement here. The chosen image just has to be put in the Recently promoted page for further categorisation in accordance of its scope. It would be a good extra if someone suggest how to put some mark on this „Title images“ in the galleries so that the audience to know that it represents a set but this is not an obligatory condition just an extra.

So please, say here if you are agree and after a week or so we can start it.

Please, do not discuss here some other issues about the VIS section or about the project in general! Please, do not discuss here the choice of the „Title image“, it is a simple procedure!

Thanks.--MrPanyGoff 09:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

    • No particular opinion about this suggestion, sorry. I'm afraid I'm not alone in this case. An interesting question is: Why ? Because I'm an uploader of pictures, a contributor, and not really a "user" of pictures from "Commons". Therefore I don't know the needs of "users". My bad. Thanks to you, you take here care of things nobody else really knows or have questions about. In a certain way, uploading valuable, quality, or featured pictures is to me a goal in itself, and I'm very conscient I do this for others, every time I take a picture. But really, I don't know how or why my (labelled) pictures are known, used, shared etc...--Jebulon (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorporating Valued images template ({{VI}}) to {{Assessments}}

I think this is a good idea. It would keep everything in one place. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

For reference, this has been discussed here previously
Last discussed 4 years ago, I think a review is in order. With limited capacity of parser functions and internationalization back then what was possible was far limited. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Already four years ago I was called incivil for the first and only time during my time on Commons. Oh well. Since then we have bots and scripts running dedicated to VI using the VI templates. It is a rather complex eco-system with many details. The bots would need modification and be more complicated to maintain and test. I am not worried about internationalization and parser functions. It is simplicity in maintenance, transparency, test, bot operation, that will be lost. It was very evident when I watched Tonys talk page about all the trouble with figuring out, where some weird categorization happened in the Assessment template. That is a symptom of a template which has too much repsonsibility and is unmaintainable. It should be broken up rather than trying to make it absorb more. Not to mention all the terrible number arguments, which makes its arguments incomprehensible. --Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
If you are talking about the discussion I had with a third party, the problem really was the introduction of auto-translate. Some content had been moved around Template:Assessments/com/layout. This issue is irrelevant to the conversation here and I do not see why you brought it up.
Your attitude here and in quality images discussion is quite different than here. I called you incivil because you were being incivil back then. Your attitude almost make this look like your turf even though you aren't claiming this. This only creates a hostile and incivil environment that is quite unhealthy for commons. If you insist on being this hostile I can leave your turf to you. Just say the word. If on the other hand you want to have a rational conversation that is a different matter which only commons would benefit.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

VICbot blocked

Something happened with the VICbot. Closed nominations of the last two sessions are not removed.--MrPanyGoff 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering an image in a different scope

When an image has previously been nominated and rejected (or, for that matter, accepted), is there a way to create a new nomination in an entirely different scope? What is the best way to do this? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You just nominate it as usual no matter if the image already has the VI stamp in a different scope. If the scope is clear then we just search for the best image. One and the same photograph can be best presentation for variety of objects, styles and activities. The title page of the VI project shows the image of the Kaaba with two VI stamps. The Broadway Tower, which is probably the reason for your question, is the perfect example how the current VI in a certain scope can be nominated again in a different category.--MrPanyGoff 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It is Broadway Tower, but I'm asking about how to do it technically. When I use the box at Commons:Valued image candidates#Adding a new nomination (image) for File:Broadway tower edit.jpg and for File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg, it takes me to the page used in the previous discussion. How do I make a new page for an entirely different discussion (with a different scope)? cmadler (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Here: «Commons:Valued image candidates/.........» we usually add the name of the file including „.jpg” but you can write whatever suitable name you want. For instance the name of the file without „.jpg” or the name of the scope. See the pages of the Kaaba.--MrPanyGoff 05:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I recommend making a slight modification of the nomination name. When you have saved the subpage various substutions will be made, and the subpage will not render correctly on the first save. Then edit the page to correct references to the file name to the correct file name and save, and it will be alright. Yes, sorry, a bit complicated and not very streamlined. But then again, it does not happen that often. Good luck with the dual scope nom. --Slaunger (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I was able to do it, but I'd appreciate someone double-checking to make sure I didn't miss a template parameter or some such. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
It appears for me to be correct, the way you have done it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Valued images by scope

I suggest removing the list „Commons:Valued images by scope“ from the first page of the project. It is so clumsy and on top of everything it is not actual at all. The bot has not placed the new promoted scopes for months even maybe an year. Only the new promotion of the MVR is placed in this list. At the moment, this list is misleading. There are some other errors and it is not quite orderly alphabetically.--MrPanyGoff 13:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

VI needs to be delisted

According to a post on the Village pump, File:Muenster-100720-15883-Zoo.jpg was incorrectly labeled as a Phacochoerus aethiopicus (desert warthog) and promoted to VI in that scope. However, apparently it is actually Phacochoerus africanus. The description has been updated, but it needs to be delisted as VI in the wrong scope. (If there's not already one, of course, it could be nominated in the correct species scope.) Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fair, how. Would he not be simpler to pass it again in VI with the new scope?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a separate consideration from removing it from the incorrect scope. (Because an image can be VI in more than one scope.) cmadler (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree but I do not know the process.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Doubled VI

Shame on us all. We have two VI in the scope of Amy Jackson. On top of everything both of them are promoted during the last months. I'm going to open a MVR. Well, I found one more doubled VI.--MrPanyGoff 05:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

well observed. Do not worry that we have already arrived. There will be again in the future. :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Double nomination in the same scope

 Question: Is it allowed to nominate in the VIC "normal" section, in the same time, two pictures candidates in the same scope ? If yes, what about the MVR section ? It is the case now, and because I raise the problem, I'm accused to try to force the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

MVR: Await automatic removal by VICbot

Hello,

It seems all closed VIC from MVR still have this mention. This is quite confusing. Yann (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wie stelle ich ein Bild zur Wahl?

Guten Tag, kann mir bitte jemand auf Deutsch erklären, wie ich eine Datei bei den Kandidaten für wertvolle Bilder einstelle und einen Kommentar bzw. eine Begründung dazu schreibe? Für eine Anleitung herzlichen Dank im Voraus. Viele Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody please provide a translation for the comment posted here as a courtesy for those who do not understand German?. This is the English version of Commons.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer: Lothar is asking for a German HowTo for VI.
@Lothar: Tut mir leid, da habe ich selber keinen Plan von.
--El Grafo (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Commons is a multilingual project and we encourage participation by all. en:Google Translate (de:Google_Übersetzer) may be helpful. Please see Commons:Language policy. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hier ist die Übersetzung des Textes auf der Seite:

Eine neue Nominierung hinzufügen (image)

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Namen des Bildes in dieses Feld (dabei File: weglassen), hinter den Text, der sich bereits in dem Feld befindet, beispielsweise: Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Dann klicke auf den "Create new nomination"-Knopf.


Schritt 2: Befolge die Anweisungen auf der Seite, wo Du dadurch hingelangst, und speichere sie entstandene VIC-Unterseite ab.

Schritt 3: Füge das nominierte Bild von Hand am Ende der Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list ein, (unter der Überschrift "New valued image nominations") als letzten Parameter im VICs template: Hier Klicken, und füge die folgende Zeile als letzten Parameter des relevanten Abschnites ein:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so daß es so aussieht: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

dann speichere die Liste ab.

Seite wo man hingelangt

<noinclude>{{VISC

</noinclude><includeonly>{{VISC-thumb

</includeonly>|title={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}

  |ingallery=Image:foo.jpg{{!}}foo description

File:bar.jpg{{!}}bar description

....

  |description=Beschreibung des Bildes (optional).

  |date=(Datum) {{subst:VI-time}}

  |nominator=~~~ (derjenige, der das Bild nominiert)

  |scope=A/The... (Thema, Anwendung des Bildes)

  |orientation=landscape (=Landschaft) <!-- Wechsele zu portrait falls angemessen -->

  |status=nominated <!-- Wechsele zu supported (unterstützt), opposed (abgelehnt) oder discussed (wird Diskutiert) wie angemessen, während Revies hinzugefügt werden <code><nowiki>-->

  |review= <!-- Die Liste von Reviewkommentaren kommt hierher -->

}}

Replacing an existing VI by a better picture

Hi,

I want to replace this File:Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg aerial view of the television tower by this better one File:Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg. How is the formal correct way to do this? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You would do a Most valued review (MVR). cmadler (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Free-speech-flag.svg
  2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Streisand Estate.jpg

Comments and input would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of valued image

Just FYI, I've deleted File:Mémoriale-16-Décembre-1950.jpg, which was a valued image. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just saw that. I've requested undeletion. Although, as you correctly pointed out, a memorial built by a local association is not in-and-of-itself uncopyrightable, in this particular case I believe it lacks the "imprint of the personality of the author" as required to meet the French threshold of originality (with the possible exception of the brick border). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I restored this file. It should never have been deleted. There is obviously no copyright on this monument. Yann (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

VICbot

Is there something wrong with the VICbot? It doesn't seem to archive the nominations. DimiTalen 09:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes there are many problems, but I do not know who to ask --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I think User:Dschwen is the developer/operator of the VICbot. Should we ask him? -- JDP90 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have asked him. He is now aware of the problem and looking into it. Hopefully a soluiton will be coming soon. --Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, apart from some minor bugs on my part (not handling foreign language signatures correctly (i.e. gebruiker: rather than user:) the main problem was the default database copy of commons on the toolserver being broken/incomplete. I've switched to an alternate copy (but there are no guarantees that this is in much better shape!). So let me know if things stop working again. --Dschwen (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for solving this! I have changed "gebruiker" to "user" in my signature, so that won't give any more problems in the future. Best, DimiTalen 21:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fully described" includes relevant information about the underlying work

Going forward, I am likely to oppose images incorporating an underlying work without giving adequate information about that work, on the basis that they fail criterion 4 ("Is fully described on the image page."). Given the recent Freedom of Panorama discussions, I think it's important to have this included in our documentation. At the least, the description page should give the name of creator (or indicate that the creator's identity is unknown) and provide a PD template, Freedom of Panorama template, or other rationale indicating why the underlying work is free. For an example of one way to do this (I'm sure others will find better options), take a look at File:Hammer Museum Westwood June 2012.jpg. Consider this fair warning. cmadler (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We have the emergence of a integrist, as encountered in the past in other type of image. This character requires for images of buildings, the architect's name and the year of construction. It did not, in itself, a bad idea, it can be a systematic observation, but not a negative vote. Conscientiously see what you can do to avoid, as was the case for User: Velvet, to see an image "fall" unfairly. It would be good this again, as required by the regulation, so that we can do it justice. I put this message on the discussion page for that there was no ambiguity about a possible conspiracy. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, other than your request to request this of nominators rather than cast a negative vote, I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. Can you try again? cmadler (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my bad english. If the idea is good, how to present it does not have. We can suggest put in forms, but not vote negatively. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh! So this is the discussion why Jebulon has posted that hairdresser's name is required at this actress' nomination. Cmadler, do you mean this too or are you restricting this comment for architecture? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL! No, I don't think this hairdo rises to the level of a copyrightable work based on originality for the US, although something like this might, and in that case, yes, I think we should probably identify the artist. Here's an interesting article that notes that hair probably fails the fixation requirement and also presents an aesthetic vs function issue. Although, under a UK "skill and labour" test, who knows? cmadler (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Valued image set closures

Dear fellow editors,

The regulars on this page knows as well as I do, that there are several Valued image set candidates, which are just dying to get closed, and which clutter the page and lead to longer loading times than needed. I closed 2-3 of them yesterday following the manual Closing valued image set candidates procedure. Unfortunately, there is no bot support for this operation, so it has to be done by hand. However, it is accurately described how to do it, so anyone here should be able to assist if the procedure is followed closely - it involves some template magic. It is a little timeconsuming though for each nomination. I would therefore suggest that set nominators or other volunteers give a hand closing the old nominations by following the procedure. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to let go of - or suspend sets?

Hi,

When we originally launced VI I had this idea with the sets, that it could be a way to promote sets of images, which have a particular high values when seen as a set. In reality this part of the project is almost dead. I think for several reasons:

  1. It is complicated to understand exactly what constitutes a good set, and what sets it apart from VIs and featured picture sets.
  2. It is complicated to setup a valued image set nomination page.
  3. It is difficult to understand how to review a set.
  4. A set is time-consuming to review.
  5. Set candidates are located at the bottom of the review page, and many never get that far.
  6. Set candidates are time-consuming and rather complicated to close as there is no bot assistance.
  7. Once promoted, VISs are not well known by ordinary Commons users, so when they stumble upon them in the main category structure, many do not understand what is the point with these galleries.

I would therefore propose that we shut down, or at least suspend this part of the project for the time being. Doing that would allow us to better focus our energy on the VI part, and further boost that part of the project.

Now, the project could be revived again, but I think some of the above-mentioned aspects would have to be addressed somehow first. As a minimum

  1. Having a wizard to assist making a set nomination, without having to be a template geek.
  2. Implement bot assistence for closure.

Thoughts? --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • At first it would temporarily stop appointments. A simple message would suffice. To me the real problem is the lack of automatic procedure. It can be done only by "insiders" who have time. To the difficulty of choosing the "old" are there to guide goodwill.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that the FPC page users are in the way to create a "FP set competition". I'm afraid two "set" labels would be confusing, and useless. Maybe be could we suspend "VIS" for the moment as it does not work, and try to explain in the FPC page what is our (by "our", I mean "Slaunger's" ) experience, and how "sets" are difficult to implement (FP sets are very messy for now, with no clear rules, and it fails to succeed).--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • How long will we have to stand by with our sets - or should we migrate to FP? ;-)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Meet our Users

I am proposing to retire Commons:Meet our photographers and Commons:Meet our illustrators and make a unified Commons:Meet our Users instead. See the proposal at the Village pump. --Slaunger (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

After reflecting on some of the feedback I have gotten. I have redacted my proposal. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2012

VICbot inoperative since January 1st

VICbot hasn't processed any closed VIC since January 1st. Help wanted. Message left on Dschwen's talkpage. --Myrabella (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Façade of the Dome of the Rock

This nominated VIS has been supported on the VIC specific subpage (green border). However, on Commons:Valued_image_candidates it is still in blue and the supporting comment does not appear. Could someone tell me how to fix this please. Thanks in advance. -- Godot13 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Same question : I promoted three sets on the same day (18th of January) and I've only got twoo green borders. I'm sure I did the same for the three of them. I'd like to understand what happens. Thanks in advance. --JLPC (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Two different pages with different names were created for the same set: Commons:Valued image candidates/Façade of the Dome of the Rock and also Commons:Valued image candidates/Dome of the Rock, Facade (2008). I have fixed it in the VIC/candidates list. The supporting vote and the green border are well displayed now. --Myrabella (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The VIC page is full and VICbot is down

There is some technical problem i suppose. None of the images after File:Brentonico.jpg are seen in the VIC list although four images, as of now, are listed below it. Where do we submit such probable technical errors? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the VIC page is full and no further nomination can be displayed. VIC bot is down because of a database maintenance. We have to wait until VICbot resumes its work, processes the awaiting closed VIC and clears the page. Detailed information on Dschwen's talkpage : User_talk:Dschwen#VICbot_is_inoperative_since_January_1st, then User_talk:Dschwen#VICbot_not_working. --Myrabella (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Was there a reason to limit the number of candidates to exactly 104? I don't think. And User:VICbot doesn't operate on candidates by number.
Nevertheless, the page has anyway become too cluttered, IMO. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, because in regular geometry, 104 is the smallest number of unit line segments that can exist in a plane with four of them touching at every vertex? I am just kidding, and you are right: the pending nominations are diplayed now, but is seems that "Brentonico.jpg" may be the cause of the issue, I don't guess why. --Myrabella (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thank you [1]! There was actually a limit of 104 images displayed. The maximum is now 120. --Myrabella (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Great! Thanks Myrabella! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It works again. Thanks a lot! BTW in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, I am not sure in which category should be Dreikaiserhaus, Aachen (exterior) (what kind of building is this?), Cartoons by Carlos Latuff about the Syrian Civil War (is this a concept or an object?), Jules Massenet's Don Quichotte (I don't a category for plays/operas/etc.). Thanks again, Yann (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
About operas: they can be in Works of art#Music, can't they? About plays: previous ones had been cateorized in Works of art#Other. --Myrabella (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Candidates that are left unvoted

Hello. I'd like to draw your attention again to the fact that there are candidates left unvoted, while many others are promptly supported. I'm referring in particular to the image of a Boeing 767 I've nominated almost a week ago, but there are other images in the same status. I already discussed this with some of you. Can you please vote either positively or negatively, or at least discuss, the images that are still having a blue frame? Thanks.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons a nomination might fail to attract votes. Users might not be convinced that an image is best, but not feel strongly enough to oppose; this can sometimes be discerned from critical comments. Users might not consider themselves adequately familiar with the topic to make a determination (e.g., I'm unlikely to vote on rocks, shells, plants, etc.). The sheer number of images within a scope might cause problems, as there can be many to pore over to try to decide which is "best" (e.g., we have a current MVR for The Bronze Horseman, which has 91 modern photographs in category -- it can be very difficult to chose from among so many). In the case of the Boeing 767, the presence of seven sub-categories (for individual non-notable aircraft -- for me this is over-categorization) might be a contributing factor. cmadler (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I would add that the population of reviewers and their involvement changes week by week. You may renominate undecided images in a month or two and find them reviewed more promptly, I note that Ikar.us raised a question regarding scope that may be in the minds of others, also. [2] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I answered the question raised by Ikar.us in that very nomination, and I'm afraid that's not a justification for supporting or not here. I'm at least discussing each nomination, specially those images that haven't been considered for days. Or is that only molusca or butterfly images are worth being valued images? To me, that looks like users are supporting each other's work.--Jetstreamer (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I can give only my opinion. I am qualified as a naturalist because it is my job, but there are many things I do not know. I think this appointment is serious and I want to support it. It is not bad will, it is incompetence on my part.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding over-categorization, Commons:Community_portal states proudly that "Ships by name"-category covers 20,000 ships. Using commons as vessel wiki makes the image repository unusable IMHO. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Two VIs for the same scope (Ortaköy Mosque, exterior)

Hello, I have just noticed that we have presently two VIs for the same scope, "Ortaköy Mosque, exterior" : this one, Commons:Valued image candidates/İstanbul 4228.jpg, promoted in June 2011, and that one, Commons:Valued image candidates/Büyük Mecidiye Camii - Ortaköy Mosque.jpg, promoted in July 2011. It's a fail not to have a simple tool to check if a VI already exists for a scope when nominating or reviewing a VIC. --Myrabella (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This problem should be solved if we use more often gallery. We need to put the two images in the competition. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There is a gallery: Ortaköy Mosque :( Anyway, OK, I will propose a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done MVR open --Myrabella (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Undecided" MVR with an existing VI

In the scope "Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)", an image was previously promoted via a 2010 MVR (Commons:Valued image candidates/Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg). A new MVR was closed as "undecided" (the other nominee was Commons:Valued image candidates/Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg). Does that result in the demotion of the prior VI with no replacement, or does that result in no change, with the prior VI retaining that status by default? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I hoped that User:VICbot's failure in demoting would spare us a jurisdicial decision. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The prior VI is still VI after VICbot processing = > result in no change, with the prior VI retaining that status by default. By the way, when a VI is demoted after a MVR, one has to replace the VI label with the {{VI-former}} template in the file page... by hand. This task is not made by VICbot. --Myrabella (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Valued_image_closure#Closing_most_valued_reviews claims that demoting is his responsibility. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As there has been no decision is just that nothing changes in the status of images. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
@Ikar.us: It is written that VICbot takes care of that, but actually this part hasn't been developed at all. Previous discussions held in 2010 (!) on this topic with Eusebius (in French): Deux VI pour le même domaine (dont une devrait être "demoted") and La vie des ex (VI-demoted). That reminds me that furthermore, one (= any volunteer) should clean the VI galleries "by topic" where the demoted VIs still appear. All those manual tasks are very tedious. So it's quite satisfying that in the case discussed above, the challenged VI remains VI after the MVR :) --Myrabella (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So why don't we just adjust that scripture?? About galleries, since VI doesn't say MVI, obsolete VI seals remaining at the now secondmost valued image aren't literally wrong, IMO. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No, VI is MVI. That is VICR #1. cmadler (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

VISC-MVR

Would need a procedure for comparing single VIC with VISC… --Ikar.us (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Worth entering?

File:Heron and small trout crop.jpg. I entered it for featured and quickly withdrew it for lack of quality. 1/60 sec. shutter didn't capture the fish well. I haven't looked through all the categories to see if we have a decent image of a fish jumping. Combined fish and heron make it a rare/valued image even though the quailty may not be the best.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there will be opposition by reviewers who accept pictures of lifeforms only for taxonomic criteria. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The weather here is warm enough for my camera now, so I hope to get better ones. Anyone have ideas for VI images needed from Edmonton?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted

Hello,

Could you please help adding a category there? There are 10 images without a category. This shows that images are promoted with unsufficent description. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. File:Aachen, Dreikaiserhaus, 2011-07 CN-01.jpg: What's this building? At least it needs more description.
  2. File:Semerkhet Vase.jpg: Is this scope a person?
  3. File:GlenfinnanShiel.jpg: Is this a lake or the sea shore? It needs more description.
  4. File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: What's the category for this scope?
  5. File:HAMC BD.jpg (scope: Hells Angels insignia): What's the category for this scope?
  6. File:A volcano called Syria.gif (scope: Cartoons by Carlos Latuff about the Syrian Civil War): What's the category for this scope?
  7. File:Cuno Tarfusser.jpg: A judge. Which category?
  8. File:Marco Travaglio.jpg: English WP says: Italian investigative journalist, writer and opinion leader. So artist or leader?
  9. File:Blinkkomparator in Tautenburg - 2.jpg: What's the category for this scope?
  10. File:Lacordaire photography.jpg: A religious, but I think he is mainly known for other reasons.

Standard format for specifiers

What about setting a standard format for scope specifiers/modifiers. Not as a reason for opposes or to decline a support, but to bring a bit of order in the choas which reigns currently.
There could be several scenarios. I will start with taxa, as I am most familiar with those and they are the easiest to specify:

  • Genus species (English name), modifier (modifiers separated by commas like: dorsal, male)
  • building/place (location), modifier (modifiers separated by commas like: exterior, night view)
  • person (nickname), modifier (modifiers separated by commas like: photograph, portrait)
  • ...please add other examples...

Possible modifiers can be enumerated in a non-restrictive guideline.
Such a system would not need a change of scope template to be altered by anyone. IMO it would make for much clearer and intelligible scopes.
 B.p. 09:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a little of what we do. We guide the newcomers. I fear, too much formalism, repels. In principle, I am basically in agreement. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Little is indeed the keyword here.  B.p. 06:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Forams

Because of nomination of File:Ammonia beccarii.jpg and File:Quinqueloculina seminula.jpg, could someone add the new category 'Life forms/Rhizaria/Foraminifera' in the MediaWiki:VIhelper.js? Totodu74 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Little bit of help

I've gotten a rhythm down for promoting VIS and they go pretty quickly. I've run into a small issue with Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Rio-Andirrio_Bridge_in_construction. There were (still are) a number of spelling errors in the title/name of the bridge. I made the mistake of trying to correct them and got a little, well, lost. I was able to successfully promote the set, tag the images, and notify the nominator. But the preview page does not reflect this. Could someone please help out, this is beyond my level of experience. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Notifying uploader

The VIC notifications are given to the nominator by VICBot. I think it would be good and encouraging if they were also given to the uploader of the image. The main task of clicking such a valuable image is after all done by them (though, choosing and nominating one of the lot is not an easy one either.) What say? If you all agree, we can ask User:Dschwen to do the necessary modifications in the bot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm! No one is interested in recognizing the creator's good work i guess. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a point common to all appointments (FP, QI & VI). It is traditional that the nominator prevents the author. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
no prevent but "tell the author"(translation problem). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Prevents?? Yes, I this is true. Should be added to the closing guidelines. The notifocation has the role=creator parameter for this. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
We could change the VIC nom template itself. We have a |nominator= in it. We can add a |creator= also. That way, the nominator can add creator's name while giving nomination. In case the file is from a non-Commons editor (eg, Flickr or transferred by some bot from another wiki), this field can be left blank.

If this is the case for FP & QI also, we can propose our final solution there as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Changing the template itself would probably be the most effective way to make this happen. I agree, if the creator and nominator are different both should receive notification once an image has been given VI. When closing VISC, sometimes there are multiple creators. I try to let each know but in many cases they do not have accounts or talk pages. If we can make these changes to VIC, test them, and demonstrate that they work, it may be easier to propose a working product to QI and FP. What I am wondering about is whether there is a way to let the creator know earlier in the process, like at the time of nomination, not just when the image is promoted. This would give the creator the opportunity to follow the discussion or comment on their work. Just an idea. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Old VICs

Hello! I came across some VICs that are old and are not commented. Probably they weren't added in the list as the nominator missed that last step. These are all not even marked as undecided. What do we do about these? If i add them now in the list, the bot will close them as some are as old as 2009. They are all present in the Category:Nominated valued image candidates. (Ignore the recent ones, already on list, but yet not commented.) A few of them don't have proper scope mentioned. But that minor and we can do the left out work. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fun there even me. These are slag that can be forgotten or destroyed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
The bot won't remove them if they have status=nominated and haven't been processed before, will he? --Ikar.us (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
These old unprocessed VICs are often draft pages. For exemple,Commons:Valued image candidates/Sainte-Enimie. Was a first incorrect attempt, see User talk:Tobi 87#Commons:Valued image candidates.2FSainte-Enimie. Then correctly nominated with a new VIC name page: Commons:Valued image candidates/Sainte-Enimie-Gorges du Tarn-Frankreich.jpg. Succesfully, with a VI at the end of the process: File:Sainte-Enimie-Gorges du Tarn-Frankreich.jpg. As for me, I sometimes prepared VIC pages that on reflection I didn't add on VIC page. Such VICs are never declared, but their page remains. I think we can forget these cases. --Myrabella (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
An other option is to change their status to "withdrawn". They will be archived here then: Category:Withdrawn valued image candidates, without needing any action of VICbot. --Myrabella (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
In cases where other nominations were created, the old ones could simply be deleted then. Save some minuscule of our server space! For others, withdrawn is a good idea. I would still want to probably go through them and see if something really valuable is in it. We can re-nominate it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What do we do about these? If i add them now in the list, the bot will close them as some are as old as 2009. It seems that the bot will not close anything until some action is taken manually to trigger the bot. If there is a way to set up another (temporary section) to come after VIC, MVR, VISC which could be archival un-assessed VIC. If set up the same way as the others, we should be able to add the VIC pagename to the section's menu causing the nomination to reappear. Perhaps we set the guidelines that anyone pulling an old file for re-consideration must give their support and then follow a strict 48-72 hour closure period for those with no comments other than the supporting re-nominator. Any objections/comments and it follows the regular timeline for closure. If every interested party has a 2-4 weeks(?) to review each page, we can delete remaining archived unassessed VIC on regular intervals. Just a thought, if everyone wants a chance to review the material in the event some belong... --Godot13 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Category

Can a category for numismatic objects be added to the VI Promoted categories? Something like "Objects/Numismatic" which would encompass coins, tokens, paper currency, checks, and any other images of non-conventional currency. Thanks --Godot13 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Misidentification -> file promoted VIC under bad scope

So, a bunch of files have been misidentified as species B for years now while they're very clearly closely related to species Q. The thing is, one of the files was promoted VIC under the misidentified species' scope. So I'm asking, how to go about removing the status? Is it ok to simply remove it and take the entry off the listings and such or must there be a renomination? For the case's sake, here are some examples:

  • Misidentified as Erigeron compositus, VI under that scope
    Misidentified as Erigeron compositus, VI under that scope
  • An actual Erigeron compositus
    An actual Erigeron compositus
  • Leucanthemum vulgare
    Leucanthemum vulgare

--Pitke (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Previous similar case here: Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_7#Error_with_an_Acacia_species and the words added to Commons:Valued image candidates/Acacia cardiophylla 08.jpg. To me, it is OK to simply remove the VI tag and take the entry off the VI galleries if the new identification is certain (BTW, can you determine a more precise species?), but could you please inform the author, user:Slaunger, before the fix? And could you modify the description too? Thank you. --Myrabella (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Worthy?

I came across File:Merlin prey fencepost Cochrane cropped.jpg on Flickr and cropped it. It seems to be one of the better ones in Category:Falco columbarius of this bird and prey. I don't know if it is worthy of nominating so I thought I would link it here first for input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How to process

Hello, I have completed Commons:Valued image closure guideline in order to explain how to treat images demoted to VI-former after a Most Valued Review => see it. --Myrabella (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was to nominate a picture for a MVR, but I lacked a bit of motivation because of the blocked process. Sure it will help !--Jebulon (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Two VI of the Teatro Politeama (Palermo)

Hello, I have seen, there are two VI of the Teatro Politeama in palermo. What to do? MVI whith both? --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, they are both legitimate, the scope is well defined. The difference between the two is clear. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • from 2011
    from 2011
  • from 2013
    from 2013

Commons:Bots/Requests/SamoaBot 4

There is an ongoing discussion about a bot that would merge multiple {{Assessments}}-like templates into single ones on file description pages; I was asked to notify this project about that, so you are invited to comment there. Thanks, --Ricordisamoa 07:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Valued image seal

This image was notified to me as VI but it does not carry the seal. What shell I do?--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your picture is on the archive page, and, if in doubt, every user can see it there. So use the template of one of your previous promoted pictures and transform this template for "Saline royale d'Arc-et-Senans maison.jpg". I had a similar problem a few month ago with two QI and another user told me to do so. If I'm wrong of if someone knows another way to manage with this problem, I think he'll tell us. I hope this suggestion will help you.Friendly. --JLPC (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Merci beaucup! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Images to be sorted in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted + a proposition for VIs about bridges

Hello everybody,
There is a big pile of pictures to sort in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted. We need to sort them using the categorizing tool in order to make them appear in the VI galleries by topic. I sorted some of them—beginning by the bottom of the page, but some help would be highly apprecied.
In addition, I propose to create a new gallery by topic: "Bridges", to be added to Commons:Valued images by topic/Places/Buildings, as we have now many, many valued images of bridges. An old discussion about galleries by topic could be revived after that, but I propose to begin with bridges. If you agree, or if nobody opposes, I will try to set up this new gallery by the end of next week. --Myrabella (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Notification of VI but no seal

This file has been notified to me as VI but it does not have the VI seal on the file info. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Images to be sorted in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted + a proposition for VIs about graves

As for me, I propose to create a new gallery by topic: "Graves, monuments and tombstones", to be added to Commons:Valued images by topic/People, or Commons:Valued images by topic/Places/Buildings as we have now many, many valued images of tombs... But I don't know how to do, anf if you accept...

Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What if it was simply called "Cemeteries" and included: graves, tombstones, mausoleums, statues, plaques, and monuments all found within a cemetery? --Godot13 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Pour avoir travaillé sur le sujet en paléoanthropologie, le terme de "sépulture" est le plus large. Il inclus les tombes les cimetières le mobilié funéraire etc... je ne sais pas traduire le concept en anglais est-ce que burial est équivalent? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
en:Category:Death customs seems to be the most inclusive category on English Wikipedia. It includes en:Category:Burials, en:Category:Burial monuments and structures, en:Category:Cemeteries‎ and en:Category:Funeral homes‎. en:Category:Tombs‎ is a subcategory of en:Category:Burial monuments and structures. I wasn't able to find a translation for "le mobilié funéraire". en:Grave goods ("le mobilié funéraire") is in en:Category:Death customs. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes I think "Death customs" is the right choice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Too large, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of "death customs" to a nonspecialist native speaker is not as obvious as it might be. "Graves, monuments and tombstones" is more transparent, but would not include funeral homes or morgues. "Cemeteries" is clear, but additionally would not include grave goods or informal or isolated burials. "Monuments" may refer to Category:National Monuments of the United States, but the context makes it clear that it does not.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I've thought about this more. I think Jebulon has the best idea (so far). I support "Graves, monuments and tombstones". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for this proposition. I agree it would be an useful addition. Would you allow me some remarks and suggestions?
Thoughts? --Myrabella (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I beg to disagree. My idea was to link this not with buildings, but with people, like "busts", "photographs", "engravings", and everything related to a person, an individual. The recent picture of the grave of Vincenzo Bellini must be linked to "Vincenzo Bellini" as a person, not to a grave as a "cemetery" category, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is still open then... In your first proposition above, you wrote "[...] to be added to Commons:Valued images by topic/People, or Commons:Valued images by topic/Places/Buildings", that is why I express that further proposition. --Myrabella (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
In addition, Jebulon's remark about "busts" makes me think that we will have to define a clear coherence with Commons:Valued images by topic/Works of art/Statues, monuments and plaques too. --Myrabella (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this addition would overlap with Statues, monuments and plaques and Religious buildings and shrines as well. "Graves, monuments and tombstones" should definely be included in "Buildings", not "People". Yann (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Images to be sorted in Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted + a proposition for VIs about currency

I wondered if there would be support for a new topic gallery for currency which could be a sub-section of the existing larger Objects (1.9). Currency would include three main categories. Paper objects (e.g., money or script, checks, bank drafts, bonds, etc.) issued by federal/local governments, governmental agencies, or merchants. Coin objects (made from precious or non-precious metals, plastic, wood, ivory, etc.) also broadly issued. Non-traditional objects is the use of objects with a community or culturally assigned value as currency (e.g., stones, beads, shells, tea, etc.). Thank you.-Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

VICbot broken?

I think, that there is a problem with VICbot, because for a couple of days, there is no extract of images and notifications of promotions. Maybe someone know what happened? Halavar (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw it too. I ask User: Dschwen is our technician VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've got notifications of promotions, so I think it is okay now:) Halavar (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

VICbot extracted processed nominations but did not put VIC tags to some of the images. --Joydeep Talk 18:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he should them back into the list --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I have put 3 of my promoted nominations back in the page. --Joydeep Talk 10:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of VI but no seal again

Commons:Valued image candidates/Budynek Starostwa Powiatowego w Rybniku 1.JPG this file has been promoted to VI more than week ago, but it does not have the VI seal on the file info. VIC bot is broken again? Halavar (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Replace the file at the top of the list for the next passage of Bot --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

An erroneous VI to demote

Hello, There is an issue with Commons:Valued image candidates/Kenzo Building, 3 Place des Victoires, Paris.jpg. The building depicted is not located 3, Place des Victoires but 1, rue du Pont-Neuf (formelly one of the stores of La Samaritaine) in Paris. "Kenzo 3 place des Victoires" is in another building, Hôtel de Soyecourt. I sorted images in the related categories: Category:Kenzo Place des Victoires and Category:1 rue du Pont-Neuf (Paris). But now we have to demote the erroneous VI. If nobody opposes, I will take care of that within two days. --Myrabella (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support and many thanks --Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Thank you for notifying the uploader of this discussion.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 Support Good work Myrabella:) I've also added proper geolocations to both places.
✓ Done --Myrabella (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Another for demotion: Commons:Valued image candidates/Milvus milvus (portrait).jpg 1, it is not Milvus milvus as listed, but almost certainly a hybrid between this and M. migrans - MPF (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this, please! I don't know the proceedure for demotion nominations. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No VI notification

My images lately promoted are have not been notified, how can I keep track of them? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot went crazy?...

Some of my promoted images have received the VI seal for the ... fourth time! Something went wild with the VIC bot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This is because you do not come often enough. Seriously, it bugue when images have similar titles, as long as there is one in competition. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that is the reason? One of the files has been tagged 6 times and its name is unique among the others. From what I see, the bot will go on repeating the process until the promoted nominations are in the page. I will try to come here more frequently, thank you! Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • For 10 (ten) times now, have my last VI pictures been tagged with the VI seal: [4]] . Also for 10 times has the VI bot inserted into my talk page the correspondent notices. That is, once every 12 hours, from the moment the images were promoted. I don't know who is in charge of the VI bot maintenance but this has become quite a nuisance! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah Ah Ah ! Very funny: I've been visiting your talk page and indeed, this is a real invasion !! I've endured that a few time ago, me too. But please, may I take for me one or two of your useless tags ? Because you know what ? My four last promoted VI were notified only one time, but their description pages are... untagged !!--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
My five last promoted pictures are not tagged (nor categorized) as VI...--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
After all that is a wise bot! It rewards those who deserve it - repeatedly - and ignore all the others, ah ah ah ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is a wise bot. It repeats again and again for the poor oldest users in order to make them happy, and in general, for those who need repetitions to be sure they understand...ah ah ah toooooo !--Jebulon (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Notifying here as this image in question is a Valued Image quality image here locally at Commons.

Please see the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Streisand effect.

This is an attempt to delete and censor an image established as Featured Picture quality on multiple different language Wikipedias, including (1) English, (2) Spanish, and (3) Persian Wikipedia.

I really don't think this is the best way to go about addressing these inherent issues.

Please let's not censor and delete images that are in-use and in-scope as Featured Picture quality images across multiple different language editions of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. Solved, but this is not the place for such a discution...--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

VI is becoming a FP/QI bis

Hello,

I see a trend in the VI contest where the quality is becoming the main criteria, thus this is becoming a FP/QI contest with slightly different parameters. It seems to me that the quality was not an important criteria when the contest was created, and I think it would be better that way. To me, the most important criteria is the definition of a proper scope for a document. However I see the scope becoming more and more narrow, looking like a description of the image. I think we should go back to the original idea. Specifically, we should not accept more than one scope for:

  • one building; no more building from east/west/north/south/above/etc. There might be a few exceptions.
  • one vehicule; no more vehicule front/back/etc.
  • one person; only one VI for a person.

Regards, Yann (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that the main criteria should be the scope. But as soon as there are several images within the same scope (which would be even more frequently the case when following your "one object/person - one VI" proposal), the quality of the images comes back into the game IMO. --P e z i (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, the criteria should be the image which shows/describes the scope the best, and it may not always be the best quality image which qualify. This case came several times, where there was a FP for a scope, but for VI, a different image was chosen. Yann (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, for part, with Yann. Some scopes are actually too narrow, and tend to be a description. As for buildings, we should only accept "interior" and "exterior", and maybe "facades", and "design", "photograph", and "painting", and "engraving", and.... Same problem for persons. We should try to reduce the scopes, but it seems difficult to establish a rule.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Exterior and interior, fine; maybe facade for a cathedral, but not for the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal, which are symetric buildings. Otherwise, no. Yann (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's evaluate together, nomination after nomination. Nothing else to do IMO. If you disagree with a nomination, then oppose.--Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For building there should be more scopes than one. Side view of the church is different than facade, because of this, there should be 2 scopes for exterior and of course scope for the interior. For persons also there should be more scopes than one, because paintings are different kind of art than photos. Halavar (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but it depends of the buildings. For persons, you may add caricatures, too. Or engravings, if any.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted is a mess

Hello,

This page is a mess. I removed an awful number of duplicates [5]. One of them is still in the MVR review section (Commons:Valued image candidates/Iyasu's Palace 02.jpg), so it will be added again by the bot. This needs to be fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Curious, I had already removed some of this duplicates two weeks ago, after sorting. Exemple: File:SMP_May_2008-12.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, the bot keeps adding them again. Yann (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you ping User:Dschwen? --Myrabella (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I cleaned up the mess with MVRs. All promoted images gets VI status and users gets notifications of promotions. There is a problem with VICbot in MVR section. Images are not removed and we must do it manually, as I did yesterday and today. Halavar (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks a lot, that's a very useful needed job! Yann (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's getting better, but

  1. there are still a lot of images with a need for a category. At least, could you add categories for your own images?
  2. There is a recurrent issue with apostrophe ('). I think that's a problem with the bot, or it needs an change.
  3. I suggest that, from now on, we request the nominator to define in which category the image should be added.

Yann (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Bonne idée. Il "suffirait" d'implémenter le menu déroulant dans le formulaire de proposition. --Jebulon (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Some category issues:

  1. Godot proposed to add a category for "Numismatic". Opinions?
 Support--Jebulon (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. In which category do we put the canals of Venice?
  2. In which category do we put doors and gates? i.e. File:Angoulême Porte 61 rue Minage 2012.jpg
  1. Well..."Doors and gates" ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. We don't have such a category now. Yann (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  2. Yes I know, it was a kind of joke... Anyway, why not create such a category ? Idem for "parks and gardens"--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Could someone add categories to the numerous plants? I have no idea where to put these.
  2. In which category do we put parks and gardens?

Regards, Yann (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing was done for the last month. I am the only one adding categories there. :( Some help would be welcomed. And what about the suggestions above? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I've always wondered what the purpose of this type of work. Categories are set up, natural and orderly way. If we consider a category of a few dozen image, it is desirable which have: a gallery, a category "value image", "image quality" and "exceptional image." It is rather that we must work. The other way that seems redundant to me, heavy and useless. But I could be wrong. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It is sad that nobody seems to care about the issues mentioned above. If this page is not maintained, it should be closed altogether. Anyone still alive here? Yann (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid that your question clearly shows the lack of interest in this page. For me it should be abandoned in favor of a different categorization. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I am going to blank and block this page. Hopefully someone will notice... Yann (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
it seems to me wise --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

VICbot broken?

There should be 3 extractions of images (0:18, 12:18 and again 0:18 UTC) but as we see, images still exist and wait for the VICbot. Someone know what happend? Did bot stopped working? Halavar (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw it too. This is a glitch that happens from time to time. We can continue I'll ask a repair. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the bot went mad: [6]. Where do these come from? Yann (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I wonder, if there is still a problem with VICbot? As other entries in candidates VI sets, my promoted set "Fife Tibetan Rites" is not automatically removed nor was the VI label set. I hope, it can be fix soon. Do I have to remove and label my set manually? Regards --J. Lunau (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

{{VICpromoted}}

At the moment the wording of the template says "Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image." For most cases this is fine as from what I've seen most people nominate their own pictures. What I do is nominate somebody else's pictures and then post the banner on their talk page as a kind of well done.

Would anybody object if I changed the wording of the template to "Congratulations! The image which was produced or nominated by you was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image"? It still covers the current use, and it's the wording Quality Images use. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Johannesgasse 26 Irakisce Botschaft DSC 9001w.jpg

There is a problem with this nomination. The page exists but the entry in the candidates list disappeared. Could this be caused by moving the file? --P e z i (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, it is due to the name change. It was nominated as "Irakisce", and promoted as "Irakische"... Maybe it is the reason. (But I don't know).--Jebulon (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it OK to just nominate it again with the new name? --P e z i (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Das weiss ich nicht...--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

VICbot doesn't work?

The VICbot does not notify the users of promoted sets of images. Here are some images, promoted from a long time, but they have not been notified and the {{VI}} template has not been added to the images. Best regards. --Angelus(talk) 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to ask User_talk:Dschwen --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done :-) --Angelus(talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Valued image sets must be closed manually. Please consider this: Commons:Valued_image_closure#Closing_valued_image_set_candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Why valued images sets must be closed manually? --Angelus(talk) 21:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hrmm, I might have done something wrong... a year ago when I submitted a Valued image candidate.

I probably screwed something up when I submitted this valued image candidate a year ago... or so I thought. It hasn't been touched since and I'm not entirely sure what happened since it was so long ago. I probably did something wrong or something along the way during the submission process. Here's a link to it, Commons:Valued image candidates/Special Forces Medic in Afghanistan (wide view).jpg Anyone have any idea what I should do? :3 This was my first/only time I made a VI submission. Thank you kindly, Dainomite (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like after you created the nomination page last year, it wasn't transcluded to Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list. If a page isn't added there it doesn't get noticed so stays open. I think that's what happened here. I've added it to the candidate list myself, so make sure you've got the nomination page listed in case anyone leaves any comments ;-) Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Holy toledo thanks for the quick reply. Also, thank you for adding it to the candidate list, I appreciate it. Cheers, Dainomite (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Valued image candidate template?

It seems odd that there's no template to put on an image page to advertise the fact that it's being reviewed. Should one be made? Ham (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Primula margotae (x) 'Garryarde Guinevere' flowers" ?

This file was promoted three weeks ago and it's been on the VIC page top line for about two weeks. Before I promoted the picture, the link "Review it", usually blue, was red ; after promotion, the blue frame didn't turn green. It there a connection between these original problems and the fact the picture stays here without being classified in the VI archives ? I asked Archaeodontosaurus about the first two problems, he did the job so as to close the promotion manually but the bot hasn't been working since for this photo. As I don't want to bother Archaeo once more and as I'm not a clever technician [like Myrabella for instance :)] can anyone help ? -- Thanks in advance. --JLPC (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Several solutions have been tried. I tried one more. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, one more time, for your help. Another solution : could Famberhorst withraw this file and nominate it again ? I mean : is it possible for him to withdraw now ? -- Thanks anyway. --JLPC (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes it will probably be the solution if the current manipulation does not work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/Ascalaphus sinister

May I close this myself? I forget the procedures as I've no other nomination recently (except the unreviewed one below). :( Jee 12:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I abandoned this path because it is too complex and redundantly with all the classical pathway. These two images could be promoted each separately. I know only one person who can help you is : user:Myrabella. That said you can close the vote yourself without problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will make a try and remember this (to avoid sets) in future. Jee 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. @Archaeodontosaurus: and Myrabella: please check for any mistakes from my side. Glad to see {{Assessments}} now incorporates VI scope and subpages. Jee 15:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Thank you, everything seems OK for me. Glad too to see {{Assessments}} now incorporates VI scope and subpages, it is useful: [7].
Concerning VI sets, I propose to freeze this section, saying that it is currently inoperative. Before that, we need to close the present VI sets candidates—as undecided. If nobody opposes, I can take care of this. @Archaeodontosaurus: What do you think of this suggestion? --Myrabella (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I highly approve. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
+1. I withdraw my other nom and hope Godot13 also has also no complaints. I asked Dschwen to consider {{Assessments}} for QI and VI too as it saves much of our manual editing time, and simplify the appearance of file description page. Jee 12:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
No complaints. My apologies- I used to get in and do the manual promotion a few times per month. I have forgotten to do so. I have no problem doing it a few times a month if it will make things run more smoothly...-Godot13 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done VI sets have been desactivated. --Myrabella (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 Comment Well done. That's why I did not nominate recently my two "Nardo di Cione" panels as a set, but separately.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_8&oldid=778369550"