Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


VI is becoming a FP/QI bis[edit]

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[edit]

Hello,

This page is a mess. I removed an awful number of duplicates [1]. 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?
Symbol support vote.svg 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?[edit]

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: [2]. 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}}[edit]

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)

VICbot doesn't work?[edit]

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)