Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list

Archives Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

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

• 

  An actual Erigeron compositus

• 

  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)