Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Proposal regarding organization of VIs and VI Sets

Philosophy

Minimize maintenance by extensive use of categories controlled by templates.

Overview of proposed category/page hierarchy

Category/page Description
Category:Valued images Overall container for all Valued image related categories.
: Commons:Valued images Main, short project page describing the project. Should have a small gallery with example VIs
: Commons:Valued images by scope I image a page with just an alphabetized list of scopes linked to the individual image pages. In this manner it can be kept in a flat structure as a single page instead of one huge gallery. This has to be edited each time a new VI is promoted.
: Category:Valued images sorted by promotion date A flat category of all VIs sorted by date of promotion. Images are automatically placed in this category when they are being taggged with {{VI}} (needs a little further work).
: Category:Valued images by month of promotion An alternative, hierarchal path to VIs subcategorized to the month of promotion. Can be maintained automatically in the process of adding a {{VI}} template to the image page
:: Category:Valued images promoted 2008-06 These category pages has to be created by hand and associated with the supercat. However it is only one category page per month so not a lot of work.
:: Category:Valued images promoted 2008-07
:: Category:Valued images promoted 2008-08
: Category:Former valued images Images tagged with {{VI-former}}
: Category:Valued image candidates Supercat for VICs in all their different states. The subcat association is handled automatically by logic in {{VIC}} and its status parameter.
:: Category:Declined valued image candidates VICs with status declined (not on nomination list or in an MVR). Cannot be renominated within the same scope unless one or more of the issues mentioned by the reviewers are adressed.
:: Category:Discussed valued image candidates VICS with status discussed (all shall be on nom or MVR list, yellow border)
:: Category:Nominated valued image candidates VICs with status nominated (all shall be on nom or MVR list, blue border)
:: Category:Opposed valued image candidates VICs with status opposed (all shall be on nom or MVR list, red border)
:: Category:Promoted valued image candidates VICs with status promoted (not on nom list or in an MVR). Images on these candidate pages shall have the {{VI}} template on their image pages
:: Category:Supported valued image candidates VICs with status supported (all shall be on nom or MVR list)
:: Category:Undecided valued image candidates VICs, which has been closed as undecided. Either as unassessed or through the discussed state with no majority vote.
:: Category:Valued image candidates with an invalid status parameter VICs which has an invalid status parameter. This cat shall normally be empty. Can be used to check is some noms have gone haywire, i.e., due to inexperienced nominators familiarizing themselves with the VI circuitry.
:: Category:Withdrawn valued image candidates VICs with status withdrawn (all shall be on nom or MVR list). Is declined on next nomination closure cycle. It is therefore only transiently that images are in this category.
: Category:Valued image sets Holder category for Valued image sets. Should not contain any media
:: Commons:Valued images Since both VIs and VISs are described on this page I this it should go here as well as under Category;Valued images
:: Commons:Valued image sets by scope As for VIs. However here the links point to galleries containing the valued image sets instead of individual image pages.
:: Category:Valued image sets sorted by promotion date As for VIs. However it is the VIS galleries which are associated to this cat, not the individual images.
:: Category:Valued image sets by month of promotion As for VIs. However it is the VIS galleries which are associated to this cat, not the individual images.
::: Category:Valued image sets promoted 2008-06 As for VIs. However it is the VIS galleries which are associated to this cat, not the individual images.
::: Category:Valued image sets promoted 2008-07 As for VIs. However it is the VIS galleries which are associated to this cat, not the individual images.
::: Category:Valued image sets promoted 2008-08
::: ...
:: Category:Former valued image sets As for VIs. However it is the VIS galleries which are associated to this cat, not the individual images.
:: Category:Valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Declined valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Discussed valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Nominated valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Opposed valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Promoted valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Supported valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Undecided valued image set candidates As for VIs.
::: Category:Valued image set candidates with an invalid status parameter As for VIs.
::: Category:Withdrawn valued image set candidates As for VIs.
Looks very good to me. --MichaelMaggs 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I modified the format of the monthly archive cats to a more international form, i.e., "...May 2008" -> "...2008-05". -- Slaunger 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have created the most important missing categories mentioned above. -- Slaunger 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Some proposed differences as compared to FPs and QIs

I propose some differences in the organization of VI/VIS as compared to QIs anf FPs

  • No chronological log in page form. Instead the VIC/VISC subcats are alphabetized according to date of nomination and the VI/VIS subcats are sorted by date of promotion.
  • No parallel minicategory structure with sub gallery pages like "VIs of Natural phenomena", "Historical VIs", etc. Instead we have the single VI/VIS by scope page with text linkts to the relevant image pages. Should be a little easier to maintain as you do not have to edit so many subpages.
  • I think we need to also add the VIs explicitly in the "real" category structure. Say, if the scope best corresponds to a gallery page, a seperate Valued image section could be made and the VI shown in a gallery with a small VI logo. I do not know how to do it best when the scope best fits a category. It is considered bad style to inlcude a (VI) gallery inside a cat, is it not? making a VI subcat seems a little ackward as there will only be one image in it. the same goes for making a dedicated "Valued image of X" page and associate it with category X.

-- Slaunger 22:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think VI categories should be put in the main ("real") topic structure. The images should simply be placed in the most appropriate topic category, if it isn't there already. Superm401 - Talk 07:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem is that it would be nice to have Valued image seal.svg  shown next to it, such that repository users can identify it easily as a VI when browsing a scope category and that will not happen by simply adding the VI to the cat (it should be associated with that topic cat already at the time of nomination really, to follow the categorization requirement). It would have been nice if the the Wikiedia software somehow supported automated indicators like that to be displayed in categories (also applies to FPs and QIs). -- Slaunger 07:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the Valued image seal.svg  can reasonably be added to VIs in all galleries by running a bot once a week or something. As long as galleries don't vary too much from the standard layout (<gallery>Image:Foo.ext|Caption...</gallery>) it would be fairly simple to add a template right before the caption. All you need to do is make a list of all current VIs (trivial), find all mainspace uses (also trivial), and then send a bot to search for Image:Foo.ext and add the logo after it (adding the "|" if it's not there already). Of course, I'm sure this is easier said then done, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do. (I'm not volunteering—but I would if I had the skills). Rocket000 20:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess it doen not have to be a gallery, it could also be embedded by a {{VI-in-scope-category}} template to be placed on the scope cats page, which has {{VI-tiny}} embedded along the lines you suggest. That is actually a good idea.-- Slaunger 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the tricky part is that it really only ought to be tagged that way, when it appears in a gallery, which relates directly to the scope within which the VI designation applies... When shown in other contexts, it may be another image which is VI wihtin that scope. My real challenge here is that I cannot add Valued image seal.svg  to an image which is in a category only. -- Slaunger 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that does make it harder. We could maintain a list of galleries where the VI is king, but if that's the case, we might as well just do it manually. Rocket000 20:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, do you think it is out of the question to add a VI gallery within a category of the same scope? It seems ackward to make a dedicated gallery page "Valued image of X" and associate that with category "X" (X="scope"). -- Slaunger 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it would need it's own page. A gallery with only one image? It would make sense for a VIS, though. We could always make (yet another) template to show off the image at the top of it's scope category. Something like a thumbnail in the top-right corner. Rocket000 21:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I had not thought of that. Good idea, like a {{VI-in-scope-cat}} embedding {{VI-tiny}}... -- Slaunger 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't see the need for advertising the VI status in any category. Superm401 - Talk 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The resaon I see a point in that is for the normal WMF editor who passes by to look for media content in the normal category/gallery hierarchy. If he/she sees the VI there is a good chace it will be considered for inclusion in a WMF content project. Dunno whether it is going to work though... -- Slaunger 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's currently no way to put a VI logo in a cat listing, and I don't really agree it's appropriate in galleries either. It's not going to be a secret which images are VIs. Editors will be well aware, and will most likely use the images on other projects without constant prompting. Superm401 - Talk 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could start out without doing the in situ promotion of VIs (it is certainly also easier to automate without). Later, if we feel the need arises, or we have a clearer view of how to do this we can introduce it. Alternatively, we could put this task on the shoulders of the nominator following promotion, if we find it be of value. -- Slaunger 23:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Announcing VI on sister projects

We now have a release announcement in several of the most used languages in Wikimedia sister projects. Time is now the right to bring this announcements on the Village pump (and/or other relevant pages) on the individual projects. This thread is used to coordinate and follow-up this activity. I will post a message to the original author in each language asking this user to do, but others are welcome to help too.

The announcement is here. Note that in the links "Commons:" needs to be added in whatever way that is done on the particular project.

Here is a list of projects to announce VI on, and suggestions of users responsible for posting.

Help expand and complete the list. -- Slaunger 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an available German speaker who could announce the project on the de Village Pump? --MichaelMaggs 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I could do it, but I'm unsure about the right place, as the :en village pumpe interwikis to the :de Fragen zur Wikipedia and that is actually a FAQ for newcomers but not a signboard for the community. de:Wikipedia:Autorenportal is rather Wikipedia-only, de:Wikipedia:Projektneuheiten is very technically (bug notifications etc.); eventually this de:Wikipedia:Kurier would be suitable. --Túrelio 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
O.k., I've posted it on de:Wikipedia:Kurier. --Túrelio 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Name of {{VIX}} template

I think we should change the name of this, as it's too similar to {{FPX}}, although the intent is quite different. {{VIX}} is to advise the nominator that there are fixable problems, whereas {{FPX}} is used to warn nominators that their nomination is hopeless. To avoid confusion by analogy, I would like to rename {{VIX}} to something else, perhaps {{VIF}} - (F for things needing to be Fixed). --MichaelMaggs 21:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was wondering if the parameters for this should be changed a little such that they are easier to remember. Personally I cannot relate to criteria numbers, but if it was something like three-letter abrreviations for the criteria I would find it easier. For instance, if it lacked geocoding, and was not categorized one could use
 {{VIF|geo=y|cat=y}}
which would show a standard message conserning a failutre to fulfill criteria 5 and 6. If the stanard parameter value "y" had another value, the default message should be overrided, e.g., if an image of an endangered species has an exact geolocation, one would use
 {{VIF|geo=Endangered species should not be geocoded to the exact location. 
Select, e.g., a nearby road instead and write in the description that the 
location is within, say, 10 km of the geolocation.}}
There are some criteria, which I think should not be adressable from the {{VIF}} template, as they are of a more subjective character, which I think will trigger frustration among nominators if stated within a template. Criteria 4 (description), 5 (geocoding), and 6 (categorization) are IMO well suited for the template. When we come to criterium 3 (must illustrate its subject well) we should not use VIF, as that is subjective and not fixable by the way. Criterium 1 (most valueable of its kind) is subjective too. Concerning Criterium 2 (relevant and suitable scope) I am in doubt. Evidently, if the scope is too narrow or wide, it is easily "fixable". On the other hand, it is also subjective. Opinions. If other users agree I could try and make a new template based on this philosophy instead of just moving it. -- Slaunger 05:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see many advantages in what you suggest, and maybe we could consider that for later. The reason for using numbers, actually, was to force users to look at the criteria page rather than trying to remember them. It's very easy to miss one out (I've done it myself) unless you are rigorous in going through them one by one. I considered allowing some criteria and excluding others but decided against it. Criterion 3, for example, may be fixable by a re-writing of the scope. --MichaelMaggs 19:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Name change ✓ Done --MichaelMaggs 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, that is fine. It is not something I feel strongly about. Personally, I will probably not use it as such a template is not really my style - yet. Perhaps after 100 reviews I will be using it constantly... -- Slaunger 22:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Need archive pages for test promoted sets

If anyone has some spare time tomorrow, the sets in Category:Promoted valued image set candidates do not yet have archive pages like the test-promoted images do. --MichaelMaggs 20:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is unfinished business for me... -- Slaunger 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Slaunger 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Layout of {{VICpromoted}} and {{VISCpromoted}}

These two templates don't make it immediately obvious at a glance that they relate to the VI project. What about adding the VI logo on the right in each case? --MichaelMaggs 19:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I will look at that before the first promotions take place. -- Slaunger 11:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug: Auto link to candidate list on nom page takes user to a deleted page

This link is on the page created after a user creates a new nom via the box on the VIC page. I assume it should be "valued image candidates" (singular) instead of "valued images candidates" (plural). – flamurai 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Thank you for noting this flamurai. I have now fixed this and another eroor in {{VIC-add-nomination}}. -- Slaunger 11:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does the photographer have any say in the outcome of image nominated here? -- carol (tomes) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The photographer can comment but not vote. --MichaelMaggs 14:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Another question

What causes a nomination to be removed? -- carol (tomes) 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A nomination is normally removed by the end of the voting period as promoted, undecided or declined. Alternatively, it can be withdrawn by the nominator. In those cases it is closed as declined on a maintenance cycle. The nominator can revert the withdrawal as long as it has not been closed as declined. -- Slaunger 07:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I never saw a listing be removed as quickly as the one that you nominated and the photographer thought he could withdraw. I would have been interested in seeing if anyone else would think differently than I did. And thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. -- carol (tomes) 09:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
A nominator can always withdraw, but since it ends up in the declined state, this means it cannot simply be re-nominated, whenever the nominator feels like the winds are blowing more favourably in his/her direction. The rules state that to re-nominate from the declined state you actually have to address some of the issues which led to the decline prior to renomination. So, withdrawal has a price to it. When I removed the nomination in question fram the candidates list I had not yet seen that it was part of a mass-withdrawal by the nominator. If I had realized that then, I would have contacted the nominator first inquiring for the reason to mass-withdraw and delayed the closure as declined. -- Slaunger 10:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were the nominator. Heh. I should probably review the rules and procedures again. I watched that one image go through one of the other review things and I thought that it had been one of the reasons that this new system exists now so, except that there is a new image of it since then. The genus vs species question seems that it should be determined by how many total are available. In this case, 3 out of 4 of the images in the one category would get that little template placed on it and 2 of the 3 from the same photographer and those little templates seem mighty important to some. I have been working with a plant genus that is huge. The biologists forsaw problems with that and assigned a 'type species' to the genus. I would not want to have to watch one of each of those species go through this process and some of the more interesting and not so typical species are being put into their own genus. I think I saw one genus here that had a several images of the cultivated variety, but not to many of the little 'ugly' wild one that they might have all come from. To me it should be about the best image for its purpose and avoid selecting almost every single image in one category (if there is more than one) having it somewhat negates that purpose. That is in my mind though, I did not read it in any guidelines. Also, I am typing my thoughts. I did not see anything like this in the test run. -- carol (tomes) 11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, you are right, I was the nominator! I had already forgotten. I forgot, as I re-nominated all those that were test promoted, and originally the creator test nominated it. I was just doing a small favor by renominating it;-) Thus, in my mind it is the creator who is the nominator, but strictly speaking you may be right that I am mixing up my roles by also closing it. Confused? I sure am by my own actions. Apparently still on the learning curve concerning closure.... On the how many VIs. Well, I do not really care how few or many there are in a specific category currently. As long as it is visually distinct species that is what matters to me, as these certainly have value for one spåecific Wikimedia project, namely Wikispecies. For the specific case it never became clear to me if the two species were visually distinct from the photos although I suspect it could be discerned by their differing hosts. Or to put it more precisely as Lycaon just did today in the VI critëria talk page: The lowest taxon possible (where visual distinction is possible - the parenthesis is my addendum). -- Slaunger 12:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Attention, working on too many images, cats and projects at the same time can damage you brain. Recently, I discovered that I did not remember the first name of Alzheimer. Did that never happened to you ? --Foroa 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, coupled with too little sleep pretending to live an ordinary family life in parallel does not lower the brain damage. Who are you by the way? -- Slaunger 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, Foroa has made a good point. Have you taken your camera out in a while? I watched the process here -- one person learned much about templates and how media-wiki works and that list goes on. The review thingie can run itself for a while, in my opinion. -- carol (tomes) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who I am, but my computer does. Commons is one of the rare places where they seem to know my name; maybe the main reason why I am hanging around here, I am not sure. I don't really know you, except that you have things to do with VI's, killed dogs, icebergs, Greenland and Danmark. I just noticed a trace from you stating "... have a very short term memory and am formally mixing up my roles" so I responded immediatly before forgetting it. Take care when you see too often "forgotten, formally, my role, just doing, mixing up, confused, ..." --Foroa 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Foroa nominated the hand-drawn pig in the test run. -- carol (tomes) 13:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(Indents reset) I am just kidding. Of course I know Foroa very well - at least here. Who does not remember the Great Ph-x debate, where Foroa first learned me about the concept of consensus? -- Slaunger 13:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What Foroa said about pretending to have an ordinary family life is one thing that perhaps everyone does. Pretending to have a good family life when you aren't is another thing entirely. You know what? About that photograph. I remembered the photograph by its critique and not by knowing about the subject of it nor the photographer of it. If I had to blindly say who the photographer of it was without looking, I would have guess Mbz1 because that image received a similar review to many of the other photographers images. Too small, rarity isn't an issue, etc. I really try to look at the image and not the name. On the other hand, when photographers find a sock and have the sock start to knock the photograph around, I have a certain amount of respect for this as well -- and sympathy, and I can see a good and safe time when it rarely appears among the primadonnas which are some of the photographers here, sometimes. Foroa, you had that ant article, if I remember correctly. It took me quite a while to figure out what the deal was with the users with the colorful user names. I haven't actually figured it out, but it is slowly occurring to me. The people who are involved at the commons are really kind of fun to observe -- and the observation is not just for that; it really is looking to see the right time and place to join in and then to jump out and let things happen again. The layers and layers of works are interesting as well. In real life, I used to like to do my homework at busy restaurants and places so that I could give my brain a break and watch people for a while. I guess that I started life watching people and feeling excluded but after a few years of living it doesn't feel so much like exclusion any longer as it feels more like not being included which is technically not the same. My fear this weekend was that there was going to be a rotation of people at the user names. I like the ones that I perceive are at those names for these last few months. -- carol (tomes) 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug: {{VIF}} template

This seems to be cutting the switch text into two parts. {{VIF|5|Try a narrower scope.}} gives:

Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails Valued image criterion no. 5. Try a narrower scope. I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. 5 (should be geocoded, but is not).

What is causing "5 (should be geocoded, but is not)" to appear at the end rather than in the midlde? --MichaelMaggs 15:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done. The subst was in the wrong place. I fixed it. I also made the {{{2}}} disappear when no optional description is given and make the whole phrase "Valued Image Criterion no. X (desc)" bold. – flamurai 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 21:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Signing noms

None of the noms are being signed. Shouldn't they be? --MichaelMaggs 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I do not understand what you mean by that? -- Slaunger 21:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Users making newer noms are not signing them. I believe the user should be allowed (required?) to justify his nomination, and should sign. Maybe the review= field should be prefilled with review={{Info}} Reason for your nomination ~~~~. – flamurai 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. The nom sign is not shown in thumb preview, but they are there when clicking on the review page (as you are supposed to do to see the image in review size). As a matter of fact I kind of like that the nominator signature is not shown on the preview thumbs, as I often suspect people are prebiased solely by knowing the nominators user name prior to seeing the reviewing page. It can be a teaser to stimulate that reviewers actually look at the review page prior to reviewing. Which reminds me: When using the edit shortcut from the the candidates list should the edit page then be preambled with a notice requesting to see the review sized photo first. (The edit link should only be used as "response" after initial review, but the lazy reviewers will probably go right for it.)-- Slaunger 12:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Position of noms

Should they go at the top? That's the convention everywhere else. --MichaelMaggs 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the bottom. It promotes more of a FIFO review structure. Considering VI review is more involved than QI or FP since it involves research, I think that's a better fit here. – flamurai 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It is intentional. Like in COM:QIC you are also supposed to nominate the oldest first, but that never happens, and i think one of the reasons is that new ones are added at the top. -- Slaunger 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should VIF be substituted?

Should the VIF template be transcluded or subst'ed? My concern is that in the future the criteria might change, so use of VIF on old reviews might be incorrect. – flamurai 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be subst'ed. -- Slaunger 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding

The rule about geocoding are being applied stupidly, insisting on a precise location for images taken decades before, where the general location is clearly identified in the text. I think we need to say that geocoding is only required where it would provide a significant addition to the information contained.

Geocoding was created in order to let people go to the location where the image was taken. That's pointless when looking at an apartheid-era sign on a named South African beach, mating frogs (most animal photography for that matter, provided the general area is given), or, most stupidly of all, microscopy work of creatures taken from the open ocean decades before.

Buildings? Yes. Gardens? Yes. Landscapes? Yes. Things where the view is uniquely tied to the position? Of course. Everything else? That's just stupid. Adam Cuerden 02:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not stupid. Geocoding is not only a Wikimedia thing, and it was not just created to let people go to the location where the photo was taken. Geocoding is extremely useful, even if the location isn't precise. It allows other applications (e.g., Google maps) to pick up photos from commons and place them in a geographical context. For example, you'll notice that on this map Google displays relevant photos taken near that location. These aren't from Commons, but this is just one application of geographical data. Having a machine readable location makes the images here so much more useful (valuable). – flamurai 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully support the logic of Adam Cuerden. Geocoding can indeed add value but should be no criterion. Or do you want to exclude images from photographers that don't have the equipment or knowledge to add geocoding information? --Foroa 05:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed quite extensively during the test phase, and I believe Slaunger even requested feedback on the VP (can't find that right now, but maybe he can). The result was that geocoding should remain a requirement. It's not only for fixed things: knowledge of where a particular animal or plant was found in the wild can be important to indicate the species' geographic range. Geocoding is admittedly often not done by newbies, but it is really not difficult and this project will make a very significant contribution to encouraging its use as a normal part of the upload process. No special equipment is needed: I and many others get locations from Google maps or Google Earth. --MichaelMaggs 06:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've got no issues with Geocoding, I think it's rather useful. It can for most people show the area the object is located which could help them if they're doing a school project or even help someone to get an up to date photo is the photo is now out of date (Say a building that was under construction which may have been completed). I'm currently Geocoding images (500+ of them) and no I can see why I should have done it when I uploaded them. Bidgee 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It can be useful, but it should not be insisted upon without applying some common sense. I'm particularly worried about geocoding images where the subject matter makes it likely to be quite near the subject's home - talk about a stalker's dream, and I also have issues with insisting on precision geocoding of, say an image showing restriction of beaches under apartheid (which ended 13 years ago), and hence would be no more useful than giving the beach name.
In short, I agree we should do it for many things. But if the information from geocoding adds very little to a particular image, then I see no reason we should require it. Adam Cuerden 09:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
We have had the geocoding debate at least three times before. Since it pops up again, it must mean that either we have some new users involved (good) and/or current guidelines are not entirely adequate yet (not so good, but expected) and/or there has been some learning curve misunderstandings (which we just have to get over with).
In COM:GEO it is claimed that it is easy. Well if you have done it a few times (as I have), I agree. If you are new to it, it requires a little effort to get going. But basically it is RTFM. No special equipment is needed as it can normally be done off-line with reasonable precision afterwards. At least in urbanized areas and near land. If you have been out flying and seen something like this, exact geolocation is not possible, nor should be. It is also often a challenge to geocode others creations, especially historic shots, at least if it is to be done with reasonable precision. So to promote historic photos, which are seldomly geocoded, we have to guess the position. An approximate location is still valuable for such historic locations, even if the precision is not so good. One thing which i see as a current problem is that there is no way to state the precision of a geocoded position in the {{Location}} template. The recommended way to indicate a precision is by truncating the position to a certain number of digits. Users have difficulties relating a certain number of digits to a precision in actual distance. This is IMO a stupid mechanism as you thereby throw away information in your best guessed location and you have no way to see if the number of digits there is based on a conscious consideration of the precision or is just a coincidence. I have therefore asked the COM:GEO project to implement support for a precision parameter to take these approximate machine-readable geolocations into acoount.
Some of the specific incidents which have caused this thread are actually non-issues. The issue about requiring geolocation on a studio shot of a species has been abandoned. Studio shots are already mentioned as an exception. So is the privacy concern/stalking concern mentioned by Adam. For the other cases I think they can be solved by approximate geocoding (which should then be sufficient to pass this crierion).
-- Slaunger 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What I've been doing re: precision is setting the "type" parameter. It's not perfect, but "type:city" gives the user an idea that the position is somewhat wide, at least. But a "precision" parameter would be great... some that would say "this location is within X radius from the given position". – flamurai 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've been thinking about the type parameter too, but I really think it is abuse of that parameter. As I understand that parameter it is used for defining the type of the object, is it a city, a mountain, a landmark, etc... It is not related to the precision of the location. -- Slaunger 20:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Handling scope changes

I and a few other users have changed the scope during nomination. I can see that someone has gotten the bright idea of simply adding

----

in the review parameter when this happens (this results in a thin horizontal line). When i have remembered to do so I have contacted the voters so far on their talk pages (tedious really, should we assume users are watching?) to inform about the changed scope. Many have returned to strike out old votes and cast a new vote after the announced scope change. This works fine, but there are also users who do not strike out their previous votes- typically oppose votes. Should we count those in or not when evaluating the final result? -- Slaunger 21:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think oppose votes should be counted. First of all, a scope change only affects 3 out of 6 criteria. If votes are based on 4-6 they're still valid. Plus, our standard should be high here, and if a user casts an oppose vote initially, that vote should stick unless they explicitly change it under the new scope. If oppose votes didn't count, a nominator could just use a scope change as a way to wipe the slate clean, then contact only those that initially supported to reaffirm their votes. If the oppose votes still count, it would motivate the nominator to attempt to address the opposers' objections, and contact them to see if they'll change their votes. – flamurai 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Make sense to me. My only concern is that it adds complexity to the rules/guidelines, which are already quite extensive. -- Slaunger 21:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I fully agree with Flamurai. In fact, I always thought that that was the plan. --MichaelMaggs 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have just never written it down I think. As some closure are up soon, maybe you should add it to the guidelines just for the record. -- Slaunger 21:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done. The rule was already in Commons:Valued image candidates/Review procedure. I have added it to Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. --MichaelMaggs 06:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Template?

Should there be a template to make scope changes easier? I was thinking something like (inside the gray box):


Pictogram voting info.svg Scope change: I have changed the scope of the nomination from {{{1}}} to {{{2}}}.

{{VIC scope change|old scope|new scope}} -- ~~~~

The horizontal line makes it easier to count votes, and by explicitly recording both scopes it is easier to put the comments above and below in context.

– flamurai 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good idea, although I prefer the name
{{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope}} -- ~~~~

to follow the naming scheme of other VI templates in Category:Valued image templates. Have to think about the border color.-- Slaunger 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The border color isn't part of the template. – flamurai 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Go ahead. -- Slaunger 09:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done Going to add to the doc now... – flamurai 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nevit Dilmen

Need I say more? heh, -- carol (tomes) 07:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at many of the nominations and at the wiki source of the main page and could not find it. -- carol (tomes) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
ahh. Lycaon 07:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevit (talk · contributions · deleted user contributions · recent activity · logs · block log · global contribs · SULinfo) --Foroa 07:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
...is al lang opgelost... ;-). Lycaon 08:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
So, he added it himself. Looking at that took much less time for me to find than looking through some of the entries. -- carol (tomes) 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Division of candidates in date sections

I found it lenghty to scroll down to a certain candidate in the long list of open VICs, so I was bold and added some date subsections for better navigation from the TOC. Consider it experimental. It seems like a transition period with so many nominations, so maybe it is not needed in a week or so... -- Slaunger 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That confused me when making a nomination, and I changed the rules to make them fit. The changes will need to be reverted if this is not permanent. --MichaelMaggs 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Michael, I am sorry that I did not clean up after me, it was a bit hasty decision. Thank you for doing it for me. -- Slaunger 20:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

VIC-thumb

I added the nominator to this template, however now I think to conserve space we should remove "used in" from the thumbnail view. It seems much more useful to have the nominator in the thumb view, since "used in" is really secondary information. Any opinions? – flamurai 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. --MichaelMaggs 18:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
'Used in' was not there in the beginning. I added it at some stage because Alvesgaspar asked me to, but of course it can be removed again. I was wondering if instead one could do some tricks with one or more parameters being shown in a pop-up panel when the mouse hovers over a nomination. As I recall I saw that such functionality had been implemented in MediaWiki(?) some months ago. -- Slaunger 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First thoughts after opening

VIC is running smoothly. I see no major problems in dealing with the interface except maybe the natural tendency of people to plug and start the appliances before reading the instructions... Two suggestions to make the page a little more appealing and dynamic: (i) put the new nominations on top, like in FPC and QIC; (ii) reduce considerably the promotion/decline periods. Most of the nominations should have been closed by now to give place to the new ones. The satck is becoming too long making reviewing and quick inspections to check new nominations a bit boring. -- Alvesgaspar 09:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the nomination times. Although I have been concerned by having too short review periods it does seem like the activity is sufficient high to lower the seven day review period to, say, four days for undisputed reviews? VIC is proceeding along better than I had hoped. I am a little hesitant to go all the way down to two days as for QIC. Decreasing the review period would also help on the other problem you mention. I would really still like to have the oldest first for a while more with a shorther review period to check out if that scheme is operational. -- Slaunger 09:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The current length of the page is largely because there were lots of pre-nominated candidates. Most of those will go tomorrow. I definitely wouldn't think of reducing the periods yet, as we are starting to get quite a few noms that are being left untouched for a while. What is really needed is to encourage new reviewers. --MichaelMaggs 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a point there Michael. I am not too worried though about the unassessed noms (yet). One of the reasons is this overwhelming amount of noms in front of the new ones. I think that when the first VIs are promoted we will se a (smaller) second wave of noms. Lets wait another week or so with discussing review periods furher to allow for the process to stabilize a little. -- Slaunger 06:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing

I was going to close the withdrawn one but couldn't find exactly what to do. Did we write a page, or do we need to do that based on the text above? For a withdrawn nom, is the only thing to do to add the Result: line, then remove the nom from the candidates page? --MichaelMaggs 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are some instructions scattered around on the talk page inside template documentation, etc, but not one single coherent instruction. I hope to have time to write a Commons:Valued image closure procedure today putting it all together. With respect to withdrawn candidates. You add
Result: Withdrawn =>
Declined. -- TheViCloser

change the status to "declined"

and remove the entry from the candidates list. Easy. -- Slaunger 06:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That one now ✓ Done --MichaelMaggs 07:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotion rules

Hi Kim, just to let you know I have temporarily reverted this pending a discussion. That's a lot more than tidying up: some of the changes would be significant in practice. Can we do it one by one? Sorry, just going out now, but may be able to log in this evening. --MichaelMaggs 10:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem and OK that you reverted. I was a little bold doing these changes, as I found some cases were not covered as I was in the process of completing the process for closure. I am a bit busy as well. No guarantees that i will make it later today. I would like to get the closure procedure ion a semi-stable state though, as the frist promotions will be possible within the next 24 hours, I think. -- Slaunger 11:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How to handle promoted valued image sets?

I am in a hurry to finalize the instructions for closing VI nominations as the first promotions are up in less than 24 hours, see Commons:Valued image closure. I would like some input on how a promoted valued image set should be associated with the existing hierarchy of images and how to organize them.

My idea is that upon promotion, the closer shall generate a new page called "Valued image set of scope", where scope is the scope parameter. This page could be a copy of the candidacy subpage, where the {{VISC}} and {{VISC-thumb}} templates are replaced at the top with a new template, say, {{VIS-gallery}}, which displays the images in perhaps review size along with a link to the original nomination (as deduced from the subpage parameter). The remaining parameters would be unused.

Each image page in the image set will then be tagged with a {{VIS}} template pointing to the VIS of scope gallery page and the original nomination.

Each VIS gallery will be linked to from Commons:Valued image sets by scope.

Should we do more, like let the gallery be a page in the category best represeneting the scope of nomination?

With the hope of fast input. -- Slaunger 16:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your main proposal there sounds good to me, if you can do it all in time! --MichaelMaggs 08:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will proceed along those lines as well as I can. -- Slaunger 09:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unintentional interwiki linking

[[af:Château Frontenac]] --carol (tomes) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I found that (it was kind of easy to find); the image was accepted and not displaying its 'home wiki' link though. I am nitpicking though; reviews are difficult due to the nature of wiki. -- carol (tomes) 09:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand. Exactly which candidate are you referring to? -- Slaunger 09:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Château_Frontenac01.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=12110155 that is exactly what I found and changed. It did take more time than reporting it here did; neither took much though. -- carol (tomes) 10:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand. Yes, it is easier just to fix it then report it... -- Slaunger 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help with VI closure

I am overwhelmed by the work associated with VI closure, and it collapses with real life obligations for me, so the project needs a hand from other users. See Commons:Valued image closure for details. Concerning VICs, I have initiated some parallel closing (those which are now dark red (declined) and dark green (promoted)) corresponding to completing steps. 1-3 in Commons:Valued image closure#Closing valued image candidates. I need someone to help with steps 4-8 for those VICsd. The procedure for closing VISCs is not finalized, but I have sketched a roadmap above. I need someone else to implement that too. I am overburdened right now. I have asked Dschwen for VICbot assistance, but this will probably take some time. Thank you. -- Slaunger 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

{{VI-count}}

I have created a template for counting how many VIs we have. We currently have 12695! -- Slaunger 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. I have added the count to the main VI page. I was going to add a link to here, but was unsure why the count is 7 when we have 20 in that category. --MichaelMaggs 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That merely reflects the incomplete closure mentioned above. It counts how many image pages have actually been tagged with the {{VI}} template. -- Slaunger 00:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotion rules for MVRs

Ok, as a follow-up to the previous thread, I would like to raise an issue with the current promotion ruels for MVRs which state

In a most valued review (MVR) the promotion of a single candidate is governed by the score which is currently defined as:
score = (number of Symbol support vote.svg Support) minus (number of Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose).
The winner of the MVR is promoted to or retains its existing VI status. If the losing candidate already has VI status, it is demoted within the contended scope in favour of the winner.
Score Action
One candidate has a positive score larger than the others Promote that candidate at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote. Demote other candidates.
Two or more candidates have identical, positive scores Close MVR at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote. Tag images as undecided. No demotions.
None of the candidates has a positive score Close MVR at least 7 days after the last image was added. Tag images with zero scores as undecided. Tag images with negative scores as declined but do not demote.
  • I have a problem with the "after first vote" clauses. I guess that here it is implicitly meant after the first vorte on the first candidate? Now what if the MVR is anly setup 6.5 days after the first vote because a competing image is found. If I understand the rules right, this can be closed very shortly after adding new candidates to the MVR. I think it would be more sensible to reset the period every time a new candidate is added to the MVR.
  • Also 48 hours after the last vote should be interpreted as "the last vote on any candidate in the MVR".
  • A minor detail. We tag candidates as promoted, undecided or declined. Not the images.
  • The procedure does not explicitly mention that candidates with a score lower than the higest score are declined.
  • The procedure does not explicitly mention what happens when the highest scoe of one or more candidates is zero (they should be closed as undecided).

I tried to adress all these issues with my edits today. A bit too hasty though, as it should be discussed first... -- Slaunger 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the changes you made and have now restored them, following up with a few changes of my own. My reasoning is:
  • Any declined candidate which is already a VI should automatically be demoted, or we will have VIs in the Declined category which is confusing to say the least.
  • Extra section added for "no votes at all". Previous wording would have required 48 hours after the last vote when there may not have been any.
  • For consistency with Image candidates, zero votes should lead to undecided rather than to declined unless one or more other candidates have been judged better. So, two candidates with votes 0 and -1 should respectively be undecided and declined.
Hope that makes sense. --MichaelMaggs 08:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, most of it does. Two special cases comcern me though. Examples:
  1. MVR with three candidates, one of which is a VI in the same scope already. The VI gets the lowest score whereas the two others gets an identical positive score. According to the rules that leads to demoting of the previous VI but not to a new VI. That is contratictory to the Most Valuable Review idea as the only way of demoting should be if another better candidate was found.
  2. MVR with three candidates. Two gets zero score and one gets a negative score. That scenario is not covered by present rules I think. Quite evidently the two with zero score should be closed as undecided and the one with a negative score should be declined. I think that case was covered by my last proposed formualtion.
Hope that makes sense too;-) -- Slaunger 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right on point 1: it is a result we did not intend.
Point 2 should be covered by the rule for "No candidate has a positive score, and at least one is negative", which gives the result you suggested above (zero not being a positive number). However, if the negative candidate is already a VI that would also lead to a demotion without any replacement, so we have the same problem.
In addition to avoiding "no demotion without replacement", I would also like to avoid VIs being movable into the Declined category. That will not only be confusing, but will result, under the rules, in that image not being available for re-nomination (even to join in any later MVR which may be started?). I would suggest that where there is a draw for the winner and where the loser is an existing VI, that all three should be marked Undecided. That could happen in the second and fourth rows of the MVR promotions table. Do you think it would be acceptable to treat losing VIs and losing non-VIs differently like that? Effectively, by virtue of their status existing VIs would be given slightly preferential treatment. --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One idea would be to simply let the MVR stay open until there is a clear winner. A declined VIC can be renominated by the way, but only after dealing with some of the issues leading to a decline. Not sure it solves all issues, but waiting for a clear winner certainly solves some. -- Slaunger 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible, but I doubt that Joaquim will be keen :) The main problem with that is that the most likely situation is a total lack of interest, perhaps coupled with a single oppose for the existing VI. I can envisage that situation remaining for weeks. Not sure there is an easy solution to this --MichaelMaggs 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Has other users something to say about this, we are kind of stuck...?!? -- Slaunger 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

<-There is a danger of making things too complicated. What about this:

  • 1. If there is a single winner scoring at least +1, promote that. Decline all others and demote as necessary
  • 2. In all other cases, close all candidates as Undecided. No demotions.

Effectively, that selects clear the winner if there is one and leaves everything as it is otherwise, for all candidates to fight another day.

The MVR can be closed after the latest of:

  • 1. 7 days after the last candidate was added, and
  • 2. 48 hours after the last vote on any candidate.

--MichaelMaggs 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Simple, meets the overall idea with the MVR, easy to remember. -- Slaunger 05:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope change and previous votes

The nominator of Moving coil instrument principle.png, after changing the scope, has hidden the old votes on an archive page and reset the status of the review page to "nominated". Is this an accepted praxis? In other cases, the changing of the scope was handeled as if it required the reviewers to reconsider their vote intentionally. --Hk kng (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the old votes should not be hidden. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotion: seven days after...

I suggest to modify the promotions rules from "seven days after the first vote..." to "seven days after nomination..." (The 48 hours after last vote in discussed nominations should be kept as is). My reasons are

  • Unassessed noms are closed seven days after nomination. By also changing the promote/decline rules to seven days after nomination the rules are more streamlined (less exceptions to think about)
  • The noms are ordered by time of nomination. It is easier for the closer to simply process nominations up to seven days before current time without having to consider the date-time of the first vote in the review section
  • It will speed the process up slightly. It seems like the activity is such that it is OK
  • It will enable me to make some cool counter logic where supported and opposed images due for closure are automatically put in maintenance categories without human interaction and enable me to implement a counter for how many candidates are due for closure.

-- Slaunger (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have changed it. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope standarization

Commons:Valued images by scope is going to get out of hand quickly if we don't come up with some way to organize the scopes. I suggest:

  1. Categorizing similar to COM:FP: Animals, Plants, People, Objects, Places, Events, etc.
  2. Coming up with a way to standardize scope. Is it "a wasp feeding on a fly", or "wasp feeding on fly"? Is it "The construction of the Manhattan Bridge", or "Manhattan Bridge, construction"? If it's the former, I suggest grouping like scopes together. For example, if we have, "The Manhattan Bridge", and "The construction of the Manhattan Bridge", the latter is a narrower scope than the former, so we could organize them as such:
  • The Manhattan Bridge
    • The construction of the Manhattan Bridge

Scope is what makes this project valuable, so if the scopes aren't well organized and easy to navigate, it hurts the project. – flamurai 06:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice if this page was better organized, but I also think it is a hard problem to solve. Concerning having an organization as in FP, we could subdivide it as suggested, but that also makes automated future bot closure of candidates harder, as it requires knowledge about which class the scope belongs to when it has to be linked to from. This can be solved by differemt means. The VIC could have a separate subjectarea parameter which could be set by someone during the nomination process or the VI scope placement could be bot assisted such that it places new scopes in an unsorted section, which shall then be edited by hand by a maintainer. Just to have a bot make the link is actually a great help.
The problem with a subcategorization is really that it is a mini-hierarchy parallel to the realt content hierarchy which is somewhat redundant, and as the number of VIs grow the granularity of the subdivision of scopes also has to be finer to make sense, so reorganizations will have to be done along the way - a tedious process.
Another problem with a coarse division as suggested is that you always run into cases where it is not evident which of the scope categories the VI should go into. I would actually rather focus the energy on highlighting the presence of VIs in the real media category/gallery structure, as it is here editors from other WMF projects naturally go to look for media relating to a specific content purpose. So if they stumble on a VI logo in their browsing it may catch their attention. Currently, Commons:Valued image closure specified that a small VI logo Valued image seal.svg  is put on existing gallery pages which relate directly to the scope. However, it does not highlight the presence when the image is only in a category as there is no way to place a logo on an image in a category. It would be cool if Mediawiki supported automatic tagging of image with small logos in categories according to their QI, FP and or VI status.
Concerning the scope names, I agree there should be more focus on the exact formulation of the scope. I agree "Wasp feeding on a fly" is to be preferred over "A wasp feeding on a fly". Perhaps it should even be "Wasp, feeding on a fly". Are there not some well known standards for what to call things? Surely, other people must have thought about this before. I dislike the indentation proposal as a scope can have several "parent scopes", and again we would start replicating the real category structure by doing this.
Another issue to discuss is localization to other languages. It would be very nice if the scope overview supported easy translation to other languages such that you could click a link to add a new translation for a given scope. I have no idea on how to setup such a system as i have not played with it before. What i have in mind is somethin along the lines of what is done at COM:POTD concerning language specific descriptions for pictures of the day. -- Slaunger 08:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of that... I guess the major problem is scope is fluid, and any subdivision couldn't be well represented on a static page.
The issue to tackle is naming standards, then. If the page is going to be alphabetized, we need to come up with some way of naming. One method might be to use the WP standards for naming articles. However, those aren't designed with alphabetization in mind. (For example, "World War I, military history" is more useful in an alphabetical list than "Military history of World War I").
However if we come up with guidelines, how do we enact them? Require nominators to write conforming scopes? Or can we trust the editor who closes the nomination to change the scope to fit the guideline without altering the semantics? – flamurai 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do a combination, add it to the guidelines concerning the scope, possibly adjust as much as we can during the reviews and allow some freedom for the closing editor. We have to remember that we are supposed to be a multilingual wiki and we should not nitpick too much at editors who do their best with their langauge skills, we should help them, when possible. It would be nice if the guidelines allowed editors adjustment in the scope to make it follow a naming standard on the fly without having to use the {{VIC-scope-change}} as long as the adjustment does not alter the meaning. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
From a bot operator's point of view let me make two remarks
  1. Ommit the and a as it leads to confusing alphabetical ordering on Commons:Valued images by scope‎. I removed it there and the bot resorts the list at every run (so no need to do that manually).
  2. Make the scope either exactly correspond to an existing gallery page name, or have a WikiLink to an existing gallery page in the scope. That way the bot knows where to tag the images with {{VI-tiny}}
The bot is now scheduled to run twice daily at 7:18 am and pm Central Time (USA). --Dschwen (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is really difficult to solve without requiring lots of manual intervention. Anything that would make the closure more complex should be avoided in my view. I also feel we should be extremely wary of re-writing scopes chosen by nominators, even if only to make them easier to search. Small changes to scopes can easily make big changes in the meaning, especially where the nominator has carefully chosen some subtle wording. Bear in mind, also, that many users do not have English as a first language, and some might easily alter a scope without realizing the full consequences of doing so.
One option might be to adopt the classification used by COM:FP, Animals, Plants, People, Objects, Places, Events, etc, and to ask the nominator to specify the relevant classification as part of the nom. That could even be made compulsory. Also, I miss having the images grouped on relevant classification pages, as with FPs, to make them easy to browse. It ought to be possible to create a bot that searches through newly-promoted VIs and adds them to a gallery page, with the scope being shown beneath each thumbnail. Clicking on the scope would take you to the original nom page. If we sought approval, that could even run as a regular task on the toolserver.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, you do realize that there already is a bot for VIC running on the toolserver, do you? If the task would be specified a little more precise I'm sure that adding this function to the bot would be fairly easy (in particular there is no need to searches through newly-promoted VIs). adds them to a gallery page Which gallery page? How should it be determined? --Dschwen (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that scopes beginning with a/the should be avoided. I have not yet seen an example yet where it could not simply be removed without altering the meaning. E.g. the current scope list has not lost meaning by not having prepending a/the. There are other trivial scope changes which could be done by experienced reviewers without altering the meaning. I think we should urge users (but not require as we should friendly to the users who do not write English that well) to write scopes of the form "Main topic, speciality". Some example of trivial scope changes I would consider trivial, but as an improvement:
  • Animated proof of Pythagorean theorem => Pythagorean theorem, animated prrof
  • Bone structure of the human arm => Human arm, bone structure (perhaps even arm, human, bone structure?)
  • Construction of the Manhattan Bridge => Manhattan Bridge, Construction
Concerning Dschwens proposal to add the gallery as another parameter, I think it could be done optionally by experienced users, but I really do not think we should demand more from nominators than we do already. Also, there are cases where a fitting gallery does not exist for the image (the finest granularity in the image hierarchy is a category). I think the preloaded nomination form looks sufficiently scary already despite all the glorious automated logic embedded there ;-)
Concerning images in a gallery. Sure that can be done, but we also have the images in the categories, and my reason for having a slolely textual based scope page is for download time. The images could be made quite small in a presentation gallery, as a thumb-sized image is better than no image.
Concerning subdivision into subject areas: Yes that could in principle be added, but that would be another turn-off for beginning nominators. Again it could be an optional parameter for experienced nominators but not something we should require. My concern is also that we will always have images who do not fit into any of the subject areas.
-- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

<- Can we at least have the bot ignore leading articles ("a", "an", "the"), as is standard when alphabetizing? – flamurai 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize we already have a bot on the toolsever. That's good. Yes, I think that removing a leading "a" or "the" should be ok, but I am not keen on other manual amendments that will re-write the scope. The gallery pages I had in mind are similar to the FP galleries, eg VI animals, VI plants etc. The page name can be obtained by an optional parameter to be entered by the nominator, or if not entered then added by somebody else later. I would be happy to make the parameter mandatory on nomination, but if you think it would dissuade nominators then it could be added later, eg by whoever closes the nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My edits to criteria 2 and 4

Since "Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects," they must follow the principles of those other projects, specifically verifiability and no original research.

Criterion 2 
The scope should not be original research. What comes to mind, though it's not a perfect example, is this nomination. Imagine that this were a user's theory and not verifiable with outside sources. Another example would be a user claiming to have discovered and photographed a new species. Images with original research scopes are not useful on current sister projects (unless there's one called Wikrackpotheoridia that I don't know about).
Criterion 4 
If VIC is to choose the "best available", this might allow non-factual or incorrect images to be promoted if there are no better images. (For example, a misdrawn diagram or schematic.) Unverifiable images would not be usable on sister projects like Wikipedia, and thus should not be considered valuable based on the project scope.

– flamurai 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Those both look fine to me. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am not too keen on those changes as they for me represent an instruction creep towards The English Wikipedia. Especially I do not like that we link directly to a quite thorough and far-fetched EN-centric policy regarding original research. Although I agree in vague terms on discouraging original research I do certainly not agree that all the quite specific phrases mentioned in the EN policy applies for Commons. Commons is not an encyclopedia, and I think we should allow a little more room for creativity, especially on the artistic side. Also, we do not know which future WMF may be launched. As long as an image is informational and/or educational it suffices for me. Concerning references to sources I do beleive we had that covered well enough already.
    That's a good point, but I disagree that sourcing was well covered already. If someone is presenting a user-created illustration as factual, they should be required to provided sources to back it up. It's necessary so that the image is useful/reliable. Say I am creating a tutorial and want to include a diagram I pull from Commons... it's important to be able to turn to a reliable outside source to verify the diagram than just trusting the knowledge of some anonymous contributior, who may or may not be truly familiar with the subject. Feel free to revert/edit as you see fit. – flamurai 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying criterion 5

I propose modifying C5 as follows to clarify:

All images, except studio shots, illustrations, and images with no known location, must be geocoded regardless of whether geography is relevant to the scope. The only exceptions are situations where the publishing of a location might be prejudicial. In such a case, a general location should be given in the image description.

  • Studio shots include any shots where the location and event are irrelevant to the image itself. For example,
    • An exact copy of a painting is considered a studio shot; a shot of that painting showing the frame and setting is not
    • A photograph of a statue against an indiscernible background is considered a studio shot; a shot of the statue in its installed location is not
    • A photographic portrait of an individual that was deliberately set up as such with an indiscernible background is considered a studio shot; a candid shot of an individual taken at a public event is not.
    • A photograph of a living organism taken in a laboratory or greenhouse setting is considered a studio shot; a photo taken in the wild is not
  • Publishing a location may be prejudicial in situations such as
    • A photograph depicting an endangered species, where revealing the exact location may endanger the life or habitat of members of that species
    • A photograph taking in a private setting, where publishing the exact location would compromise the privacy of the subject or photographer.
  • If the exact location is unknown, the image description should include as much as is known. For example, the exact location of a photograph taken on a ship might not be known, but the body of water, last port, or route could be included.

I know it's lengthy, but I feel like this has been the most controversial criterion so far, and it will help to be very explicit as to when geocoding is and isn't required. – flamurai 04:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of clarity, and agree that this has been the most contraversial criterion, but I am not convinced that a long list of special cases is the way to go. Recent noms and votes seem to have settled down and there is now much better agreement of when geocoding is needed. Personally, I would leave it for a few months and re-visit if we find that arguments continue. It is easy to add stuff into the rules but once they become very complex they will be extremely hard to simplify later. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your examples, Flamurai, but I also agree with Michael concerning keeping the criteria as short as possible. I agree we should wait a little and see how it goes. An alternative suggestion could be to make a dedicated subpage concerning geocoding and VI, which is linked to from the criteria page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay... how about a simpler change... just adding in "regardless of whether geography is relevant to the scope". My concern are the examples of VIs we've had where users commented "geocoding would not be helpful". – flamurai 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
But is that not already covered by the wording "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so. Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots, unknown locations, illustrations, diagrams, charts and maps, situations where the publishing of a location might be prejudicial (eg privacy concerns, endangered animals/plants). Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field."? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "appropriate" is a strong enough word. It leaves some wiggle room. However, the arguments about geocoding seem to have disappeared. My only concern is having to deal with the same thing when new users come across VI. – flamurai 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Procedure for withdrawal

There seems to be some confusion regarding the procedure for withdrawal, as this recent thread on my talk page demonstrates. It seems like we do not have it described anywhere on the pages in the VI links overview. It is described quite clear though, but well hidden in some template documentation; Template:VIC#withdrawn. I suggest we copy the formulation there to a new subsection prior to or immediately after Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure#Renomination. Any objections? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be possible for the uploader of the photograph to withdraw nominations and have the sense that they were also the nominator when they weren't. What happens when a photograph is uploaded by someone who did not nominate it? To me, to allow the uploader to withdraw the photograph goes against the whole 'giving the image with a license' to the commons thing. But this is also a 'feeling' as the withdrawal seemed to be. This is of interest to me as I might nominate images that were uploaded by others some day here; does the photographer have more rights in this review system than they do for the image everywhere else (due to the licensing and its presence here)? -- carol (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Carol, so far I have not seen withdrawels that are not legitimate. In fact, Slaunger resubmitted some of the "reset" testrun nominations from amongst others, Lycaon, when VI came official. Obviously, that put you on the wrong leg. --Foroa (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
When I reviewed the image, I had no idea who the photographer was until I started the review. I was in somewhat of a wrong though, as I thought it would be an easy review since in my memory, it was one of the images that made this VI review make more sense. When I reviewed it, I was surprised to see that other images of similar species had been uploaded since it had been nominated on FP. Even now as I type this, I have not verified anything by actually looking at the FP nomination. The fact that when it was renominated, it had Slaunger's name as the nominator -- the photographer name was not on the little box with the link that said "Review this". Perhaps that link could or should be changed to say "Review this if you are not carol" would make it more clear to everyone who should review and who should not review.... Anyways, I am able to understand that a renomination is kind of a borderline case, that being said, perhaps the withdrawal still should be clear about if there is a difference between the nominator and the photographer and who is allowed to withdraw images. -- carol (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think carol is correct in asking this question of whether we give special rights to the creator with this rule and I think it is worthwhile discussing it in a little more detail.
The answer to carols question is:
  • "Yes".
Is that something we need to do:
  • "No".
It is something I suggest we do as a courtesy to the creator. The purpose is to address two special cases:
  1. A nominator nominates an image which the creator is well aware does not meet the VI requirements, so to save time and the humiliation (I do not mean to use such a strong word but with my limited vocabulary that is the closest I get) of receiving numerous oppose votes the nominator should be entitled to withdraw the nomination without further ado.
  2. The humble creator who just spends time and resources on contributing at Commons and is really uninterested in VI and in receiving possibly negative reviews. As a courtesy of the creator I think we should let those withdraw nominations although this is not a right for the creator.
There is a loop-hole though. Suppose a nominator wanted to sabotage the potential VI nominations of another users flawlessly valuable creations by mass nominating them and immediately withdrawing them, they will end up in the declined state from which the creator can only nominate them in case something is done to fix the issues leading to withdrawal. But something which is perfect cannot be improved. Thus, it is impossible for the creator to renominate them. This is a pretty odd situation though and I guess our other mechanism of stopping vandalism will be used to overrule this guideline in this case.
-- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Whereas I am pretty sure it is best to allow both the creator and nominator withdraw a nomination, I am more unsure about the uploaders right to withdraw. What do others think? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
When I entered the telescopes into the review trial, it never occurred to me to contact the uploader of the recent telescope image. If the uploader (who I think was also the photographer) had been sensitive to the use of the image in venues such as this one, perhaps the original upload should not have been made -- here, where images are supposed to be licensed to use. In hindsight, it does seem that it was a little rude of me to nominate such a wonderful and good photograph without letting the uploader/photographer know about it -- but what an awkward situation! The borderline situation where the photographer got all weird and withdrawing and thinking that the name had been published with the re-nomination and such; in a less open venue, I would suggest not getting the photographer involved due to the artsy and sensitive nature that might also accompany such a creative type person. And further, I would like to say that I had no intentions of reviewing a problem like this -- I really thought it was an easy thing and I really thought it was a different photographer. I avoided that house image for the same reasons that I didn't avoid this one; the nomination looked like a "deal" and I just want to review images without thinking about deals or messages or symbolism or who the photographer is and how they might react. -- carol (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not that I envisioned that you should always ask an uploader or creator prior to nominating, although I would consider doing it after nomination just for the uploaders/creators information, also such that this/these users could follow the process (if active) and deal with issues as they arise (like request for geocoding). The case I had in mind concerning withdrawal was more when the humble uploader/creator completely uninterested about the VI circuitry (and perhaps incapable of communicating in English) was repeatedly contacted with enquiries about geocoding, and other supplementary information, request for adding details to an illustration, etc. which the uploader/creaotr simply does not want to deal with or does not understand. In that case I think it would be OK if the creator/uploader was allowed to withdraw the nomination. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re-nominating undecided

How does one re-nominate an Undecided image? Just change the status to nominated or do I have to renominate like it was a new image? I would like to reopen Commons:Valued image candidates/Taj Mahal in March 2004.jpg and put it in an MVR against Image:TajMahal20080211-1.jpg --Inkwina (talk contribs) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You also need to archive the previous review, see Commons:Valued image candidates/Nomination procedure#Renomination for details. Good luck with your renom. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pending vs. new nominations

I don't get it. What's the difference between pending and new nominations. --norro 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Pending candidates are all candidates which are still open for review. Another, more appropriate terms could perhaps be "Open nominations"? The new candidates are the most recently nominated candidates (which are also pending). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

VIC closure the next days

I am offline til the mid of next week and a volunteer is requested for doing closures of VIs. It is just a matter of executing decision on the VIC page and change the status to either declined, promoted or undecided depending on the result. Notifying the nominator, tagging the image page and removing the closed candidates is taken care of by VICbot. Oh, and it would be nice if someone would work on describing the process for VIS closures and created the needed templates. I do not have the time in the foreseable future and we have quite a few close VISCs which need to be removed from the candidates page. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Sets

Shouldn't each image in a Valued Image Set be marked in some way on that image's description page? I was looking at the Thespis images, and, well.. nothing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. I see above. I can probably make a template tomorrow. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeking closer

I am on vacation until July 23. I ask someone else to do the VI closures meanwhile, and it sure still would be nice if someone would implement the VISC closure process, such that we can clear COM:VIC for closed VISCs. I just do not have the time for it these days. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot doesn't seem to work on set-nominations

There are quite a few set nominations that should be closed. Somewhere I read that the bot runs twice daily, but it doesn't seem to mind the set nominations. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have read the above section bevore typing my comment... OK it is not implemented yet. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Valued image sets

As several have pointed out the promoted Valued image sets are stalled on the candidates page as the templates for further processing has not been defined nor has the process. I have not had the time to do it, and, apparently, no-one else has felt the need either;-) Anyway, they have been there for such a long time now, that it is becoming embarrassing. I had a few hours of spare time today, so I have done some work on how to display and automatically categorize a promoted valued image set in the main name space category structure, see {{VIS-gallery}}. It can be prettified (help would be appreciated). What do you think. I am planning for an intermediate template called {{VISC-to-VIS-galllery}}, which, when substituted will convert a copied {{VISC}} (of the promoted VISC) into a VIS-gallery (for bot automation).

The promotion process should be along these lines:

  1. ✓ Done The VISC is promoted on Commons:Valued image candidates
  2. At the time of promotion 1-3 new parameters are added by the closer to the {{VISC}} candidate subpage
    1. parent: Parent categories the VIS gallery page should be associated with
    2. titlescope (optional): A possibility to override the scope with a shorter scope better suited for inclusion in a gallery page title
    3. interwiki (optional): Interwiki links to sister projects dealing with the same scope (if such ones exists)
  3. A new page called Valued image set:<scope> is created
  4. The candidate subpage is copied onto the new page, the template snippet in the beginning
<noinclude>{{VISC
</noinclude><includeonly>{{VISC-thumb
</includeonly>|...
is replaced by
{{subst:VISC-to-VIS-gallery|...
which upon saving (substituting) converts the candidate page into a {{VIS-gallery}} template followed by the specified parent category/categories and optional interwiki links. This template is easy (for me at least) to make once we have settled how {{VIS-gallery}} should look like.
  1. Each image in the set is tagged on their image page with {{VIS}} pointing to Valued image set gallery page generating a link based on scope or titlescope (if the latter is specified).

Comment, suggestions?

-- Slaunger (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good... of course my attention goes to the templates. I've been experimenting with {{VIS-gallery}}, and I think maybe we should stray away from using <gallery> tags (or {{#tag:}} which has it's own issues). I'm thinking simply going with html (well, wiki-html). See {{gallery}} for an example. We can then even customize it VI-style. I hate working with html/css, template logic is more my thing, but I'll give it a try. It would make adding images with captions so much easier (and no need for {{!}}!). Rocket000 (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree it would be nice to get rid of {{!}} in the gallery provided this is done in both {{VISC}} and {{VIS-gallery}} The {{gallery}} concept for sure looks interesting and I fully follow what you write in the documentation. If we are to do that it should e now as the number of VISs are still low, so bearable to fix. I understand the wiki-html you are refererring to. I had such thought yself earlier in the template work. I cannot really see (yet) how you can specify an (unknown) number of images and (optional) captions and still keep track of which parameter is which whilst also supporting the other (named) parameters in the templates. Also, you gallery template needs some support for heights and perrow parameters, which I use in the #tag gallery. However, I always know you are up for challenge and i am confident that you will solve it with considerable aplumb with your ingenios template capabilities. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, to keep the unnamed parameters in order you'd have to leave empty any ones you don't give a value for. Just like in tables, parser functions, and some other templates. E.g. {{template|Image:Example1.jpg|caption1|Image:Example2.svg||Image:Example3.png|caption3}}. In this case, I left out the second caption but the space is still reserved. And named parameters never affect unnamed ones. They can be anywhere—before, in between, or after the unnamed ones; it doesn't matter. The format and styling is what I'm concerned with. I'm not that good with css. Rocket000 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds reasonable with the empty captions. I did not know thet the unnamed parameters were robust against named parameters being weaved in. that is handy information. Thanks. A supplementary question, which relates to thoughts about the conversion template {{VISC-to-VIS-gallery}}, which I envision making. In this template I need to transfer all the unnamed parameters to the next template. Is there a shorthand for specifying all parameters, like #* or something like that? If not there will be a lot of {{#if:}}, I guess? Also, I am wondering if i just should get going first with the old {{#tag: gallery|...}}, scheme, and then leave the fancier gallery for a follow-up iteration on the templates? This, depends, I guess, much on when you expect you could do this (as I think it is beyond my humble template capabilities)? I understand you are busy doing taxonavigation templates and lots of other things. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Ping. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Argh, too many things. I forgot all about this. Sorry. Ok, I didn't check out your templates yet, but I'll try to answer your question. It's best to think of unnamed parameters as named because they technically are, you just don't have to explicitly state them. {{{1}}} is named 1, {{{2}}} is named 2, etc. You can see it works the same way as "named" parameters, like {{{name}}}, since you can do {{template|value3|2=value2|name=something|1=value1}}. "value3" is {{{3}}} not {{{1}}}. Explicitly named parameters (including numbers) always take precedence. So in order to pass parameter from one template to another, you do 1={{{1}}} or name={{{1}}} or 1={{{name}}}, etc. In the simplest form you can also do {{template|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}} where the values are the parameters but usually the other way is better. Not to confuse you, but you can also pass parameter names, e.g. {{{1}}}={{{2}}}. This essentially makes the parameter itself a variable adding a whole new level of complexity. Something I've been experimenting with in templates like {{species}} and {{genus}}. Rocket000(talk) 06:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
So, in conclusion it is not easy to transfer a series of unnamed parameters (which would be the image names and captions in the gallery) to the gallery. The gallery contents has to be specified as a single parameter and thus the {{!}} templates are needed. That is also what i have implemented. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I haven't found a easier way for what you already have. Rocket000(talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)