Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 6

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.

Space Shuttle: subdivision of scope?

Hello,

I would like to nominate at least an image for the scope "Space Shuttle". But seeing the number of images and subcategories, I am a bit at lost to define precisely the scope. Should we have a separate scope for "Launches of space shuttles", "Landings of space shuttles", for the orbiter only, for each of the five orbiters? Thanks for your suggestion, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would look ok for me to have the following set of scopes and subscopes: "Space shuttle" (a general view with a nice angle, orbiter only, either in flight or on the ground), "Space shuttle launch" and "Space shuttle landing", each scope being common to all current, past and possibly future orbiters falling in the "space shuttle" class. I would also be ready to accept two scopes for the explosions of Challenger and Columbia (much easier to find good candidates for Challenger than for Columbia, I guess). This is only a personal view. --Eusebius (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the scopes suggested by Eusebius. Concerning whether we could have one VI for each of the space shuttles, I would say that depends on how similar their visual appearnce is. If, visually, it is only the name of the individual shuttle that differs, then we cannot have one VI for each shuttle. If there are more notable visual differences between the shuttles (I have not looked and I do not know), I'd say one VI per shuttle would be OK also. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we attract more reviewers?

Promoted valued images
Year-month Images
2014-07
  
80
2014-06
  
217
2014-05
  
300
2014-04
  
278
2014-03
  
262
2014-02
  
199
2014-01
  
265
2013-12
  
270
2013-11
  
242
2013-10
  
288
2013-09
  
228
2013-08
  
183
2013-07
  
255

VI has been running for more than a year now and we have promoted more than 700 VIs and 13 VISs. When the project started there was quite some enthusiasm and built-up expectations, and there was also a fairly high through-put of nominations. Since then the activity has gone up and down and right now it seems like we are in a period of fairly low activity level. As I see it the monthly throughput is quite strongly correlated with the availablity of VI reviewers. We are only about a handful of regular reviewers currently and right now we there is a large pile-up of VICs needing review. I think it is a pity that there are only so few regular reviewers. It is quite time-consuming to review at VI, as you have to check other thing than the image nominated, and when you are only a few reviewers, it can be quite a burden, and you wear out. At least that is how I have had it with reviewing at VIC. It is really interesting and rewarding but also a lot of work.

If the reviewing workload was spread among more reviewers, the burden would not be that large and the individual reviewer could also better focus on the types of images, where the reviewers is most knowledgable about the scopes and has the best judgement.

Has anybody any ideas how we could possibly attract new reviewers here? I'd rather not cannibalize on the reviewing resources at COM:QIC and COM:FPC by posting "ads" there. Is it a little bit scary to review here, as you have to consider other things that the nominated media? I was wondering if one could make some kind of VI-reviewing tutorship and attract new reviewers there.

Another approach could be to try to attract users from the Wikipedias as COM:VIC is closely linked to the magic phrase "encyclopedic value" and I have seen many Wikipedia users at WP:FPC and elsewhere express a general dislike of commons, as according to their perception the Commons picture programs are only about pretty pictures and not value.

I am a bit hesitant at doing that as well. Our sister project WP:VP has had a turbulent life recently. It started out perhaps not as well organized as COM:VIC and recently Durova even nominated the WP:VPC program for deletion as a spin-off to the boycots and turmoil at WP:FPC. When COM:VIC started I tried to recruit users from EN and promote COM:VI there, but was surprised at the resentment I met. I had preferrred if it had been possible to not make a WP:VP sister project as ultimately we have same overall goal albeit the process is different. From my point of view it had been better to channel the WP:VP reviewing resources to COM:VIC to make one strong project for the benefit of all Wikimedia projects. That viewpoint was, however, not what the WP users wanted. Instead i met the viewpoint, that we should not start COM:VIC as we did not have the competences to assess the value of an image.

Wow. I love working with the Wikipedias. --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I just went back and re-read the original discussion and as a matter of fact it wasn't as bad as I recalled. Almost all Wikipedians were constructive in that debate. A single one certainly was not, and that was what I recalled. In general I also enjoy working with Wikipedians. I think it is with Wikipedia as with Commons. Most users are just great and then there are the rare ones which are really annoying. --Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One last thing I have considered is urging nomintors to do more reviews. Like putting a flashy template on the preamble of the edit page where a VIC is created urging "Whenever you nominate one, review one!"

I'd like to hear your opinions on that - not only from reviewers, but also from nominators. how does it feel being here and how can we increase the activity level again?

--Slaunger (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to say 1) that I'm not dead and that I've not left the project, I just don't have so much time for reviewing (but I'll make an effort) and 2) that I'm against your latest idea (asking nominators to "submit one, review one"). Nominating a picture is a valuable action, it contributes to the project even when the nomination is not 100% ok according to the criteria. Reviewing a candidate, OTOH, is much demanding (I think). People should not be "forced" to do that, or it won't be done well. We can have both nominators, nominators/reviewers and reviewers. I'm very ok with that. Motivated nominators should of course be encouraged to review if they want to, but I have mitigated memories about nominators of very good pictures giving meaningless reviews, thus requiring other reviewers to counterbalance their views. --Eusebius (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
1) I never thought you were VI-dead ;-) I guess my point is you should not feel obliged to review here all the time. Sometimes you simply need a break. However that requires that we get more reviewers. 2) You are right that nominators should not be "forced" for review also. Perhaps it could be a softer formulation, like "Whenever you nominate, consider if there is an unassessed image you could help reviewing."? --Slaunger (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Identification info regarding living species

Recently I have becomed a little involved in a Danish Nature site, where I register observations of plants and animals I see and photograph in Denmark. On that site, each observation is checked by a quality assuring panel and one of the parameters, which is assessed is how the species has been identified. It is not that it is required that you have done the identification in a particularly fancy manner, it is to make sure it is recorded such that it can be taken into account if any doubt is later raised concerning the identification. For instance if the identification has been done using a flora book, and it is later found that this book has an error, whcih leads to misidentification, there is a way to trace which observations could be affected. Or, if you have taken a photo of a dandelion (of which there are 900 species in the scandinavian countries) and you have identified it to the species level it is highly interesting to have some notes on whether the identification has been done by the user, or using some assistance from a domain expert, as it tells a lot about the confidence in the identification.

All this has made me think that maybe we should add an additional requirement for living species saying that it is required that the file page contains information on who and how the organism has been identified also quoting book references if relevant. I have done this myself in some recent uploads like

Imposing such requirements would also be in line with recent discussion in the TOL project, see

There are some further details on the metadata suggested there, which we should perhaps take on board to be coherent to TOL.

What do you think? --Slaunger (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, certainly makes sense right across the project. I have been very sceptical of people wanting to use species data in association with geo-locations, because I know that identification by photographers is fraught with errors (and makes bad statistics by using inaccurate data to draw conclusions (or distribution maps ;-) ). Adding some information about the id process, and some suggestion of the degree of certainty would help. So I think this would add to the value of an image. I see no problem with this for self-made photo's, and I suppose when the uploader can't be found or doesn't remember, the nominator can detail how they 'confirmed' the identification (as a by-product it would also alert people to useful references etc) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of adding it as an additional formal requirement. As a contributor I'd feel that submitting species-related VI candidates is reserved to an elite. Even with the knowledge I have of how things work, how to find scientific documentation and how collaborative the ID process can be, I would personally just stay away from the tree of life. Furthermore, it would make the reviewer's job even harder. --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to point out:
  1. It does not have to be rocket science to indicate how identification should be done. It is just valuable to know if it was "Identified by me.", "Identified by Lycaon, see [[here]]", or "Identified using this or that book, a microscope, confirmed by professor this and that". It is not that an "Own identification" is something which should be frowned upon and is not good enough. It is just valuable to know. Most users (in my area at least) would know what a blackbird is for instance if such a photo was nominated.
  2. It is solely the responsibility of the creator that the identification done is correct. The reviewer may scrutinize and double-check this to a reasonable degree using the most obvious available online resources (such as Wikimedia projects and public and well known databases). If this is not possible I am basically of the opinion that we should assume good faith. If the reviewer happens to be a domain specialist, the review can of course be more qualified, but it should never be the burden of the reviewer to guarantee that the identification is correct. The reviewer should never be blamed for supporting a candidate if it is later found out by some expert that the id was wrong. --Slaunger (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It ist valuable to know, how the picture was identified. Especially if it is a insect - you need very special literature to identify an insect properly and sometimes even a very good foto is not sufficient to differenciate between two or more species. Therefore I would like to know what is known to the uploader about the identification. Sometimes there is nothing more than: Uploadet in Flickr as "Turdus merula" or something like this. But this is OK. We should dokument what we know about the identification and teach the others to do so. --Kersti (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Geocoding requirement to be for specific classes of pictures, not excludded from specific classes.

I think it's time we review the Geocoding criterion. This has long had major problems, and is now getting to the point of pointless bureaucracy, where it is insisted that everything has it, even if the information is not actually known to any reasonable level, due to historic photos or other reasons.

I think we need to make Geocoding only apply to cases where it is actually helpful, to whit:

Geocoding must be provided, if known or reasonably discoverable, for:

  • Interior shots of buildings where the architecture or displays within the building are the focus
  • Views of the outdoors, including cityscapes, landscapes, seascapes, and of things within the outdoors, such as trees, buildings, and so on.
  • Views of animals, in zoos, or especially in nature, except where this may help poaching.
  • Statues, monuments, and other things confined to one place.
  • Things similar to the above.

This will stop such stupidities as "The operation needs geocoded", or "Please violate your privacy by geocoding the photo of your indoor housecat, or we will not accept it", or "Please geocode the laboratory that did the electomicrograph".

Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Current phrasing of the criterion already says that geocoding is not required when the location is unknown, when it would be a breach of privacy or when it is a studio shot. Personally, I don't think enough new elements (if at all) are brought to light to justify a switch from a blacklist (what doesn't need geocoding) to a whitelist (the only subjects that need geocoding). However, I agree that discussion over the geocoding criterion can sometimes be unconstructive, and that we should be a bit more flexible about it. A note about the "operation": I personally think it is interesting to know that a given kind of operation is performed in a given part of the world (even though the operation room itself probably doesn't need a geotag). --Eusebius (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but do remember that our goal here is to find the best image under a certain scope. If the geocoding is a very minor boon, then surely opposing an image over it is ridiculous, when so many much more major flaws are forgivable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but no, it is not "ridiculous" in general. It might sometimes be ridiculous to decline a candidate for this reason, but it has to be discussed case by case. Which criterion is most important for a VI may be somewhat subjective though, but in the context of this project, geographic information has been deemed important (along with the five other criteria), whereas technical quality, for instance, has been judged secondary. I see no reason to change the baseline, even though I think that we (reviewers) sometimes need to be more flexible. --Eusebius (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Geographic material may be very important in some cases: If the image is of, say, a statue, knowing where the statue is is clearly basic information. But "in general", we aren't dealing with such photographs, and in some cases, the geocoding may be impossible to reconstruct. Putting it simply, if the image is of, say, a building, anyone can easily look up that building on google maps and add geocoding - it's reasonable t require it there. If the image is, say, of a dolphin, with no geographic details visible, and the uploader is nowhere to be found, then it's impossible to reconstruct geocoding, and yet we will throw out the image, however good its other qualities, unless such trivia can be discovered. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No, because "unknown locations" is one of the geotag exemptions. Again, there is already much in the phrasing of this criterion, with room for discussion of particular cases. --Eusebius (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

suggestion

Why not add a single sentence to the geocoding criterion:

 If exempted from geocoding, the reason has to be mentioned in the description. 

That closes all loopholes and avoids this discussions. Nobody ever said that every VI needs coordinates. We're talking about VI's, not just any image but a tiny fraction of all images on Commons. This makes it easier and unambiguous. There is a geocoding statement required, whether this is in the form of coordinates (in most cases) or in the form of an exemption statement, for which we can be quite lenient as long as it is properly explained. For a valuable image there can't be too much info on the description page. Lycaon (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose First of all, that requires even the excluded categories - illustrations, diagrams, etc - to have a sentence saying why they aren't geocoded - which makes Wikipedia look stupid. Secondly, it's not really appropriate for the image description page (Though it may be for the image's talk page): distracting, off-topic information is going to distract from usability, with the only benefit being to VIC. If the requirements of nominating an image for VIC are going to require the image description page to be degraded in quality - and random statements about why the image isn't geocoded does that through irrelevancy - then it's just not an appropriate requirement. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The geocoding requirement for VI says:

"5. Is geocoded, when relevant. 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 (for example, privacy concerns, endangered species). Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field."

Thus I do not see why the regulations should be changed. It is obvious that for the discussed Commons:Valued image candidates/Abdominoplasty skin and fat removal.jpg there is no such thing as a geocoding requirement. That some users apparently think otherwise, is the result of not reading the rules properly, and not of the rules being set wrong. -- H005 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules should not be changed, only better explained. AFAIK only the first oppose on this nom was for lack of geocoding ... Lycaon (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this proposal, basically for the same reasons as Adam. I think it is better to put the "coarse location data" (where applicable) on the image page, because it might be useful there, and the reason why there is no geotag in spite of a VI nomination, on the VI candidate talk page, because it is really unneeded on the image page, and not very nice ("Geo-location not applicable as the picture was taken in the lab", honestly, who needs that?). The image itself can be categorised in Location not applicable, as suggested by Commons:Geocoding. A similar case is when I review a candidate for, say, a bird or an insect: I usually try to make the nominator/photographer/specialist say why this image is nominated for the full scope or for a gender subscope, but this information stays on the candidate page, where it is needed to understand the VI promotion. However, in that case, some encyclopaedic info about male/female appearance could be present on the image page, for the reusers. In the case of "geotag not applicable", really, I don't think the justification is valuable for reusers, so I'd keep it within the VI review. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot info

VICbot cannot currently process candidates due to a database issue. Some of EuseBot's tasks may also be affected. --Eusebius (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of MVR

Hello,

To increase the visibility of MVR, I propose to inclure the MVR candidate page at the bottom. There are not so many candidates at the same time, so the page isn't that big, compared to FPC and QIC pages. I will do it unless there are oppositions. Yann (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

MVR appears twice

It seems that the MVR section appears twice. I believe it should only appear once. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What to do with a valued image that looks like a different species?

The butterfly on the picture File:Butterfly May 2008-3a.jpg that is a valued image for pieris rapae looks totally like a pieris brassicae to me. The dark markings on the tip of the forewing seen through the wing goes far too way down for me to belive it is a rapae. I notified the uploader a long time ago on the user discussion page but he/she didnt answer. What should I do?--Korall (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Valued image set candidates awaiting VICbot

Hello, Is there a problem with VICbot for valued image set candidates? Some reviews are closed since August 2009 and are still awaiting automatic removal by VICbot. --Myrabella (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I relay here the answer Eusebius posted on Dschwen's talk page: ":Hi. There's no problem with VICbot. It's just that the closure of VISCs is fully manual because this feature has never been implemented. It is one item in a long TODO-list... Sorry about that." --Myrabella (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Contesting the result of a MVR

Hello, I contest the result of the MVR for the scope "Macaron" : there were two candidates, Commons:Valued image candidates/Macaron 1.jpg and Commons:Valued image candidates/Macarons 001.jpg. The second image has been promoted, but the first one received one support that hasn't been counted. So the result is "Undecided" (1/0 each), IMO, and I contest the promotion. --Myrabella (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have modified this output, and I have cleaned the recently closed MVRs (the bot should clean the MVR page later). When closing an MVR nomination, please just follow the procedure described here. It is a bit tedious, but it is the result of long debates about how to do it fairly. Also, please think about archiving the MVRs (see the link at the bottom of the MVR page, and the note about it in the procedure). Also, take extra care when closing VI set candidates. The procedure is even more complicated, and for now it is not automated at all. Just follow it step by step... Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

pink backround color

The pink backround color for candidate pages is distracting. Is is possible to change it with a neutral light gray?--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

EuseBot issues

For information, I have stopped the bot feature which used to populate Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted, because it is malfunctioning for now (for some obscure reason probably related to MediaWiki or pywikipedia updates). --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Up and running again. --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Valued image sets of species

In this VISC: Commons:Valued image candidates/Corvus mellori the nominator has raised some interesting questions wrt how a goos VIS of a species is supposed to be composed. It is restated here:

...
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was going by those guidelines, but I obviously have a different idea of what adds values to sets of animals. My dream "valued set of images of a particular animal" would be one to illustrate its adult male physical form, one for the female, one for the juvenile, one to illustrate its eating, one to illustrate its communal habits, one to illustrate its common behaviour, one to illustrate it interacting with its normal environment, and one to illustrate its sleeping. (Admittedly I only have three or four of these). You might say "but that's just a collection of images", but the point is that the collection depicts very different aspects of the animal (even moreso than the insects: front vs side). My ideal valued image set could ALL be put on the same wikipedia page about the animal, and would provide everything wikipedia needed for that species. --99of9 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm happy to take your advice and just submit the image of the Little Raven's physical form, but I'd still like clarification on sets. Can you describe your ideal valued image set for a single species of animal? --99of9 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think 99of9 raises an interesting question here. We do not have have details about what a good valued image set is in the guidelines today, and maybe this is something we need to elaborate a little more.

My thoughts about this is:

  1. It is only under unusual circumstances that I perceive a set nomination of a species scope is relevant. I would normally say that a single illustration is the adequate form as a valued image candidate. i think if what would normally go in a taxobox for representatively illustrate the species. However, there are times when this is far from easy. For instance, birds which have a juvenile plumage significantly different from adult plumages, or gender specific visual appearances.
  2. Unless a specific behavior (eating, mating, sleeping, hatching, whatever) is very specific to the species, I would say that they are not essential for showing the characteristics of the species, i.e., for identification purposes. Behavioral characteristics would for me most often be relevant in connection with hiogher taxa, i.e., Flight of hummingbirds, feeeding barnacles, a hatching turtle, different flowering stages on the same tree at a given time, oviposition among ichneumon wasps etc.
  3. I can imagine some scenarios where a set nomination can be relevant. Say, if you have taken photographs of the same plant on the same spot showing all life-cycle stages from seed to death would certainly be eligable as perhaps the life cycles of the species. The same applies if you have followed the same bird. Another example could be a set of schemes from the same author using the same graphical style, where an animal species is shown in all relevant states, showing e.g. all plumages of the a bird depending on age and gender. For me a valued image set of a species cannot simply be a gallery of the best images we have of the species on Commons showing it in its different stages. The reason not, is that it gets problematic when a slightly better photo of this bird in its juvenile plumage becomes available. Then the set is not the best anymore, but maintaining it for such a small improvement is not really worth the effort IMO. Not only is it subjective, but that is what we already have species galleries for IMO.

--Slaunger (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Ok, that makes sense to me. I suppose the only thing I now differ on is your point 1. I would expect to often have a male, female, and juvenile subscope (because it is more common than not that they appear different). But I agree it's better to do it with single images rather than sets to prevent the ambiguities you suggest. --99of9 (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • You're right about point 1, which is apparent after re-reading what I wrote first. When such visual differences are relevant we have the posibilities to use subscopes for single image nominations. --Slaunger (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Former VI?

If we promote a VI in the same scope as an earlier VI, how should we do with the old one? I think we should have just one VI in every scope. In Category:Danaus eresimus there is an old VI and a new set. Shouldnt the former VI loose its status? --Korall (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We promote a set, although we had a simple VI already? Well, someone should have noticed that at review time (or, we should have a technical means to detect that). We have a procedure for VI against VI, when evaluated in an MVR (the bot demotes the former VI), but here it is somewhat odd... I guess the VI should be demoted, but without an evaluation?? Is the VI part of the new set? --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it isn't the case [I answer question n.2 only: the VI part isn't part of the new set]. This is the VI, and this is the set. --Myrabella (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that this case is expected and the first image loses its status --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I am the creator of both the set and the single VI. When nominating the set, I thought those two images were better than the old one, and my intention for nomination was to delist the old one. I just dont know if there is any formal procedure for doing that. So I just remove the VI tag on the old one? No tag for former VI:s? --Korall (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
When we created this project having images and sets of the same scope was quite frankly not something we had thought about. From my point of view, the set which has been promoted corners my original intention with the sets somehow, as for me the accumulated value of each photo, seen on its own is not significantly lower than the value seen as a set. However, I did not stand up to oppose when it was nominated so I should not complain about that Smile. However, I agree with the original creator that the set is better than the VI, and given that the creator is voluntarily proposing that the original VI should loose its VI status, I think we should just set that into action. There is in fact a former VI template and a number of things that needs to be done in this delisting, that I will be happy to do....a little later this evening, as I am busy right now. I think it is a quite unusual situation, so I do not see any reason to add anything explicit about this case in the guidelines as they are already quite tl;dr already. If this turn out to be a recurring situation I am ready to reconsider inclusion in guidelines. --Slaunger (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I seize the opportunity to ask if the presently promoted set could be part of the scenarios where a set nomination could be relevant, according to the post below (and to thank Slaunger for his thoughts on Valued image sets of species... and perhaps for the treatment of that case of double VI and VIS promotion ;-). --Myrabella (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I realise I promised to demote a VI above here, which I had forgotten completely about! I'll get back to that later if that is still what we want to do. Not entirely sure that I understood your question, Myrabella? Are you asking if the species set discussion below should have any impact on the outcome of this discussion? That we should rather find the best phto of the species and nominate that for VI and demote the dual photo set with the same scope? --Slaunger (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I was simply wondering if your first opinion on this set ("From my point of view, the set which has been promoted corners my original intention with the sets somehow, as for me the accumulated value of each photo, seen on its own is not significantly lower than the value seen as a set") would remain the same today, or if we could consider that the added-value of the set would be to show relevant aspects of the species useful for its ID (e.g. distinct and characteristic spots on wings, seen from above or from side). If it was the case, 1) we could keep this promoted set; 2) it could be a reason for completing for your proposal n. 3 "scenarios where a set nomination can be relevant: [...] where an animal species is shown in all relevant states" [or truly distinctive aspects], for instance. It's a lay person's question, I know very few things about butterflies Lepidopterae. Smile --Myrabella (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Now I get it.
  1. I still think it corners my original intention. Yes, seeing it from different angles gives improved input for identification purposes, but so does basically all photos in a species gallery, so for me there is not a special reason to pick out a few and state that these are extra adequate for the purpose as there are likely to be aspects in other photos in a species category which gives additional input. The advantage of the dual photo species sets is that they show the same individual, under the same light conditions on the same location from different angles, and thus, as a set they can be perceived as (slightly) more valuable than the individual value of each image. But I think such set nominations should be discouraged though, not my personal favorite. In most cases better to have a single image VIC.
  2. I do not think we should demote the currently promoted species sets though, as this is only my personal interpretation/opinion and guidelines for sets are very open for interpretation, so set promotion is susceptible to the subjective views of the individual reviewer, it is just not an exact science.
  3. I am not a butterflies Lepidopterae expert eitherSmile.
--Slaunger (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification, your use of the phrase "cornering my intentions" is a bit like "twisting my intentions", not quite hitting the middle of them? It was a bit confusing when paired with a support vote. --99of9 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I should have used another word than cornering. My intention was to say that it was close to the edge of (but still just within the boundaries of) my intentions with the sets. Thank you for pointing out this contradiction between my phrasing and the vote. I realise now that cornering normally has another meaning. --Slaunger (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to get rid of the optional usedin parameter in new nominations?

Hi all,

For some time now file pages on Commons have had a "File usage on other wikis" section, where dynamically maintained links to use in other Wikimedia projects are shown. For me that implies that the optional usedin parameter we have for candidates when nominating should be deprecated as it is redundant information. It is also a field which is tedious to establish, and it rapidly becomes out-of-date as it is not dynamic. Any reviewer should proceed to the file page anyway during a review, and will see file usage there, so I do not any longer see a reason for filling it in.

I therefore suggest to remove mentioning of the field in the guidelines for nomination and template documentation, and also remove the field in the nomination page preload. As the templates are today, this field is only shown if something has been addded to it, so the display of candidates will continue to work fine without it. I would like to keep support for it in the template implementations for reasons of backwards compatibility, i.e., that for old nominations, the field will still be shown for those who have used it.

The only vague argument I can find for keeping it as it is, is that it gives a snapshot of the file usage at the time of nomination. This could in principle be interesting if we wanted to find out if promotion to VI had had an impact on usage after promotion (e.g., comparing progress in Wikimedia usage statics between promoted, undecided and declined candidates).

--Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No objection. --Eusebius (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
OK to me. --Myrabella (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --Slaunger (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Valued image set with images by different authors?

Hey there! I have found no policy or precedence on this, so here's me asking: Would it be a problem nominating a set that is comprised of images not by one, but two or more authors?—Apart from the question who gets the credit ;-) --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael.
A valued image set candidate nomination can inded be composed of images taken by several creators. Examples could be different photographers who have photographed the same event at almost the same time but from different angles. Another example could be a set of photographs taken the same place of the same area but at different times to illustrate, e.g., a historical change in the architecture of a well known town or city, or seasonal changes (winter, spring, summer, autum). The hard part of finding such a set is often that the individual images often would vary greatly concerning composition, overall quality, and format, which makes it difficult to find a coherent line of resemblances between the individual images. When we tested the VI concept with test nominations back in 2008, there was actually one test candidate (with only two images), which i would say could be a good example of a valued image set with more than one creator. It was this one: Commons:Valued image candidates/Yerkes Observatory 40 inch Refractor Telescope. Hmmm maybe we should try an renominate that and see what happens. --Slaunger (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Taking these consideration into account, I have nominated Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Srebrenica-Potočari_Memorial_Center. Feel free to review it :-) --MichaelBueker (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong ID in a VI

This picture was promoted to VI under the scope Chrysis ignita. However, and after consulting a specialist, it turns out that the correct species is Chrysura refulgens. What to do? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

When such a change modifies the membership of the VI scope, then I think it needs to be delisted and renominated. Otherwise, it may suffice to add a note to Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Chrysis_April_2008-1.jpg and correct the captions in the VI lists.[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely not acceptable to have a VI with a scope that's wrong. When we have some evidence of this, I'm in favor of delisting and automatically re-nominating it under the new scope. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I am of the Same opinion of Michael --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In Alvesgaspar's example, the VI scope membership is unchanged; it is now Category:Chrysura refulgens, i.e., with three images by Alvesgaspar. So it is hard to see how the outcome would be changed. So why renominate it? What am I missing? By the way, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Videos revisited and on the history of VI

In Commons:Valued image candidates/05june-dow7-wide.ogv, this question was recently asked:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Videos are not within the scope of the VI process. (Commons:Valued image criteria, the very end of the page) --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I stroke my oppose since KS0stm correctly pointed out that "animations" are documented to be allowed here: Commons:Valued_images#Eligibility. I'm puzzled. Could someone more familiar with the VI project's history elaborate the intention a little more. Is there a particular reason why "animations" are allowed while "videos" are not? What is the exact difference between an animation and a video? I guess this nominated thing would be a video not an animation since this is measured data, not something someone just draw, but that is just my interpretation of the difference between video and animation. Opinions? Cheers, --MattiPaavola (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A question is raised concerning the history of VI and the difference between animations and video. Well, I can certainly explain the history point of it, but whether it is sensible or not is perhaps a thing we ought to reconsider.

In the original draft proposal two years ago, the idea was to setup a project to complement COM:QIC and COM:FPC with an emphasis on value. QIC and FPC only accepted "image" formats, which includes gif files. However gif files can also be animated, and these are traditionally accepted in QIC and FPC. To make it easy for FPC and QIC users to understand VIC we decided to use the exact same media types there to start with, meaning that video or sound files with file extensions differing from the standard imge formats, png, jpg ,svg and gif were out of scope.

Including other media types, and either change the name to valuable/valued media, extend with subprojects like valued video or valued sound was also discussed though

Back when the project started I opposed including other media types, for several reasons

  • It would be harder to establish a project identity in comparison to QIC and FPC as including other media types could be perceived as the difference
  • Valued image does not fit well with videos
  • We had more than enough work to do establishing all guidelines, templates and processes for images, doing videos, sounds (or scores) could be done later, when the project had established itself better.
  • At the time, there were not many valuble videos, sounds, etc., so getting a sufficient flow of nominations seemed unlikely
  • I was concerned that we would not be able to recruit competent reviewers for these media types for the project.
  • Fundamental issues needed to be resolved, like can a video of a scope win over an image of the same scope.

However, now, 1.5 y after the project was actually launched, it seems to be entering a more stable phase with a handful of dedicated reviewers and nominators, a constant flow of nominations, which are actually being reviewed. I also think the project identity has grown and matured, and I feel that it would be worthwhile to extend our jurisdiction so to say. Finally, I also think that the amount of available and relevant valued non-image media files have grown quite a bit since then and the availability of competent reviewers for those other media types are perhaps bigger now?

I would propose that we do that in steps, by first embracing videos in some form (they are related to images) and later, perhaps, sound files. However, before we just launch that we need a community discussion about how it should work - some of my original open questions are still valid IMO, so we should settle that. If there is an interest in including video, which makes sense as we already accept animated gifs although our guidelines are vague considering those, we should go through the existing guidelines, process and whole setup to consider, Now, how should this work, if we had videos as well?

Back then, before we launched VI, we made test nominations to test the process, maybe doing the same as process objects for a few videos could stimulate discussions?

Thoughts? --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slaunger, for your thorough answer. It's quite late now, but here are my two cents:
  • Videos deserve a forum for their recognition. FP, QI and VI consentrate on stills and Commons:Featured sound candidates concentrates on audio, but I'm not aware of anything similar for videos.
  • I personally think that videos (or animations) shouldn't be part of FP, QI or VI, but instead deserve a project(s) of their own because
a) not all the people interested to review images are interested to review videos (and vice versa),
b) the instructions for the review criteria would be partly different for videos, and
c) not everyone has the network bandwidth and the CPU power to smoothly browse a page with multiple animations running on it simultaneously, but would still like to continue reviewing images.
  • If a video evaluation project is started the technical reviewing and voting mechanism should be identical with one of the existing mechanisms (VI, FP or QI). When I got interested in these three projects last year, I was surprised that all three had different mechanisms. We shouldn't introduce a fourth one.
BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
a) Agreed, although the overlap is probably larger than for sounds, Commons:Featured sound candidates is currently a deceased project, which never really got started.
b) Agreed, and I think the differences will be quite small at the end of the day
c) Maybe. Some of this may be solved by choosing adequate preview sizes for the animated gifs (isn't it correct that it is actually downscaled ones that are downloaded, when shown in smaller size?) And for videos isn't it really just the first frame, which is consuming bandwidth in preview, and only when play is hit the bandwidth is needed.
On one hand you say the videos (and animations) should no be part of QI, FP or VI as they are now (I agree), and you are also saying that we should not invent new mechanisms, but reuse processes from existing projects (I agree as well). Well, would the sensible thing then not be to make new superprojects like Featured media, Quality media, Valued media, let these projects have same the process, voting mechanisms and overall objectives as today for the picture/image projects. These could then host the existing FP, QI and VI projects as (major) subprojects having specialised technical quidelines specific for still images. Then we could initiate smaller subprojects under the same overall media umbrella with specialised technical guidelines for motion media (video, animation), sound, scores, etc. I think the first subproject to be launched should then be the motion subprojects, as these would be the easiest to get going concerning drafting specialised guidelines and recruiting reviewers. Next possibly sound, and then who knows what?--Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. I agree that it would be best to start with videos and animations. Maybe it is best to start from the top, from the "Featured Videos" -level, since I guess it would be the easiest one to find reviewers for. On contrary, it might be difficult to set the bar high enough for this top of the tops level. In that sense, it would be better to start with Quality Videos or with Valued Videos. Anyway, I think I would still start from Featured Videos -project since I find it the biggest hole now in commons. We just need to be extra careful when writing the criteria page for it.
Maybe the superproject pages do not need to be produced immediately, but instead start from creating a video project which would be almost a duplicate of the corresponding stills project (but obviously with a tuned review criteria page and some kind of handling of the bandwidth generated by the animations). Then, much later, we would see what could be moved from subprojects to the superproject.
What would be the correct place to start drafting the criteria page for videos and animations? I think we could start with that to see if a consensus can be found easily on that front and only after that proceed with a more serious proposal to the community? What do you think?
(No, I don't know either if the preview size of an animated gif currently affects the bandwidth. I don't know if the resizing happens in the server or in the browser. Anyway, I guess that that technical detail could be sorted out in mediawiki sw then if needed. (If we find a volunteer. :) ))
BR, --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Matti,
I agree with you that the best place to start is probably as featured project as that there the chances for getting something on wheels is largest, as it has the highest density of reviewers and the largest Community attention.
I think the best way to go ahead with such an idea is to draft an openminded and not too detailed proposal, e.g., on a subpage of your user page (cf. User:Slaunger/Valuable Images). Announce the idea on at COM:FPC and at COM:VP (and German, French, etc. equivalents) concurrently to gain a critical mass of users actually engaging in discussions about it. Then it is important to recruit one or two dedicated helping hands and some interested on-and-off users around the project while it is being developed. In the process some tests concerning layout of nomination pages should be discussed. Some potential motion media candidates should be used for actively discussing and establishing the guidelines specific for the media type. I think we managed to do that fairly well when we established COM:VI, although some would argue that the initialisation process was too long. (Five months from first draft January 2008 to project launch June 1, 2008). It is not something I personally have the resources to drive right now though, but I would be happy to act as helping hand. --Slaunger (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I fully agree with the plan. However, it seems that I'm too busy now and would prefer also acting as a helping-hand, but not a driver. Any volunteers? --MattiPaavola (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as a matter of interest, the video/animation in question just got featured at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:05june-dow7-wide.ogv. Ks0stm (TCG) 05:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to have sounds included here. I've done a lot of work with sounds, and have literally no way to have them brought to any wider attention. I'd gladly write up guidelines for them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Very little activity for Valued Image Sets

Hi there. I've noticed that nominations for Valued Image Set see very little activity. This goes for human activity (i.e. reviewing, commenting), but apparently also for bot activity. This one has been promoted for over fifteen days, while this one was withdrawn more than ten days ago. So I ask:

  1. Does the VICbot take care of sets as it ought to?
    1. If not, should we make it?
    2. If yes, are there waiting timespans that I'm not aware of, larger than 7 or 14 days?
  2. How come human activity is low? Could it be because it seems intimidating to try and accurately review a whole set along all the criteria? (I know it is to me.)

Hoping for some discussion :-) --MichaelBueker (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael
As far as I know VICbot does not handle closed sets. Closure is done manually by following the procedure in Commons:Valued image closure#Closing valued image set candidates. You are very welcome to do so for the ones awaiting removal from the list, if you would like to help Smile.
A far more serious and valid concern is the activity one. After more than 1.5 years, only 16 valued image sets have been promoted as compared to more than 1000 valued images. That is a very low number. Yes I do think people are reluctant to review them, because it is really a large task to check all the images for the criteria. But I think the hardest part for most nominators and reviewers is to understand what is actually meant by a valued image set. There have been several discussions on it on this page, and you also had a question about valued image set candidates prior to your nomination. I actually also did have a glance at your nomination, and thought, ahh, this is not exactly what I perceive as a set, but I did not have the heart (and time) to oppose it after all the work you had had defining it and asking clarifying questions before nominating.
The problem is the identity of a set. It is extremely hard for peaople to distinguish between a gallery of selected photos (this is what you nomination is IMO) relating to a category, the category itself and then a VIS. Moreover, since VIS came up, its identity has come under pressure from featured image sets, which are now accepted and get much more attention that valued image set candidates.
Therefore I am beginning to think it would be meaningful to trim and streamline the valued images project by discontinuing the small valued image set program. It would not have much impact on the project due to the low flow of nominations. Moreover we could tighten some of the guidelines and make them simpler if we did not have to deal with the sets in the guidelines.
Opinions? --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Slaunger! Thanks for the clarification on the closing process. I looked into it, but I think I'm too tired to get it right at the moment ;-)
As for the Valued Image Sets themselves: I completely agree about the fact that there is no clarity as to their identity. I've looked at past sets, I've read ongoing nominations, asked here and posted a nomination myself—and apparently I still missed the point. Don't get me wrong, I'm not angry with anyone! But it goes to show that the meaning of the VIS is not at all intuitive.
You see, I've been contributing my own photos for a bit now, and I very much enjoy the encouragement that Quality Image and Valued Image promotions provide. My photography skills aren't extraordinary, and my photo equipment certainly isn't either, but it's nice to pick up a promotion here and there. That's also the reason I wasn't aware of Featured Picture Sets—I just don't play in that league (yet) ;-)
But coming back to the topic of Valued Image Sets: I think I would be in favor of your proposal to drop the concept of Valued Image sets. There would have to be some thinking about what to do with the old ones, and about how to cover cases where more than one Valued Image for one scope is in existence or would be useful. But still: It would 1) simplify work on the Valued Images project and 2) avoid confusing and frustrating newcomers. Also, with the number of promoted image sets still low, "contingency operations" on existing Valued Image Sets will be less complicated.
Looking forward to more opinions! --MichaelBueker (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I contribute sets of images, e.g., Argentina egedii and Craft_Island,_Washington, but have been unsure whether they satisfy the criteria of VI sets. Moreover, I have a large number of images to upload and I'm trying to emphasize that activity. Consequently, I submit and review individual images, work that requires less concentrated effort. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the examples you mention Walter are better considered as well maintained and good galleries. For me a VIS should be complete in the sense that to ever alter the selection of images or change the ordering of the images would be irrelevant. A VIS is static once promoted - one reason is to hinder alterations to the gallery once promoted as it could "ruin it". Another objective is to show them in a larger than default size such that observer can better appreciate the images as a set. For instance Valued image set: Oviposition among ichneumon wasps is such a complete set. It would not be relevant to squeeze another photo in between, pull one out or add another one. The set could only be superseeded if another creator created a series of images, which was even more convincing in illustrating the depicted process (which would be hard). For the galleries mentioned, you could envision that they were supplemented with relevant photos from other stages in the life cycle of the plant or other seasons. Galleries which are destined to evolve and improve dynamically over time never really being complete in the sense I think of complete at least. But this is just too hard to grasp for most.
As to what to do with existing sets, if we decide to discontinue the set subproject, I am not sure. Maybe they could be left as is, but marked as being historic somehow? Maybe some could be nominated as featured sets and get a continued life that way. Others could be demoted to "ordinary galleries" categorized to the scope as existing VIs? --Slaunger (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I must say that your explanation, Slaunger, made the purpose of Valued Image Sets very clear to me, and it actually is a useful concept. Before discontinuing the subproject, I think we should try and formulate more strict and clear criteria for Valued Image Sets, as they are somewhat soft and misleading now. Especially your statement:
It would not be relevant to squeeze another photo in between, pull one out or add another one. The set could only be superseeded if another creator created a series of images, which was even more convincing in illustrating the depicted process (which would be hard).
explains very well what Valued Image Sets are thought to be. When you find the time, I'd be happy to try and write new, dedicated Valued Image Set criteria, which are not just a remix of the Valued Image Criteria as it is now. --MichaelBueker (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
In the past, I've found that clearly delineated sets have little problems - all the original illustrations to Hunting of the Snark; all contemporary images of the lost Gilbert and Sullivan opera Thespis, that sort of thing. It can be possible for a set to be changed - for instance, the quality of a couple of the Thespis images is not as good as for some of the others, so I could see replacing it with a better scan - but it should be coherent, and have a clear inclusion rationale. I'm actually working on one now: It's all images f the première of Massenet's Le Cid in L'Illustration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Internationalized diagrams and VI

I took the liberty of copying two previous comments in a new section here in order to clarify the discussion. --Myrabella (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

May I ask you at the same time if a set made of the same diagram but in various languages could be envisaged? The question has been raised by this VIC, and it is interesting. I don't thnink so—clearly, it isn't a static series—, but in fact, I don't know how an "internationalized" bunch of images could be promoted in order to be identified as VIs in the Wikipediae using the different versions depending on the language. --Myrabella (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

While I support the recognition of diagrams, and the internationalization thereof, I think to use VI for the latter purpose would diffuse its focus. Moreover, it seems to be straightforward to edit the .svg file to translate each label. That seems to me to be an activity distinct from the visual illustration and depiction that is recognized by VI. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree: it is straightforward to edit the .svg file to translate each label. The problem raised by the nominator is that if it is the original version that is promoted (the German one in the present case: Commons:Valued image candidates/Sonar Principle DE.svg), the VI label won't appear in the English version used in the English Wikipedia, for example. --Myrabella (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that a VI-version template may be helpful. Placed on image pages, it would display the VI logo with the words "[filename], another version of this file, is a Valued Image". That would serve to recognize other versions and would be useful for other editors. I tried adding {{VI-tiny}} to the other versions gallery of File:Thornton_Lakes_25932.JPG, but the result is so unobtrusive as to be unnoticed by many, in my judgment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a tough question IMO. Ideally, if the technology supported it, there should only be one image page hosting the common graphics and all localizations as well as a language switch. The language selected by the viewing user (or the main language of the wikis linking them them), would then determine which localized version to display using the language switch. In that manner we would also avoid maintenance of a lot of almost similar files in case a brushup was done on the common graphics. I am afraid though, that this is not possible? --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It actually seems like the SVG standard supports localization and language switching inherently! I do not have the technical insight though to fully understand if this can be materialized on our mediawiki platform? --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been discussed if a set nomination could be possible. I would say a clear no to that if we are to follow the clearer guidelines we are working on in the thread just above this one, as such a set would never be complete (i.e., localized to all existing hundreds of wiki languages), and even if it was, new languages would be defined shortly thereafter, and the set would be incomplete again. Another interesting aspect is which of the languages gets the VI status. We state in the scope rules that if there are no matching galleries or categories relating to the scope on Commons, a link to an EN article is preferred over other languages. Strictly speaking this is discriminatory towards other languages, but it is also a pragmatic and practical choice as en is the largest wiki. However, it does seem a little odd to me to promote an EN version to VI, if the German version was the original on which other localized VIs are based as in that manner the creator of the graphics is acknowledged. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Walter mentions the use of {{VI-tiny}} in the gallery of other versions. In contract to Walter, I actually think that works quite well for indicating the original on which the derivatives are all based. Albeit that little yellow logo is small, it is still eye-catching in the file page Walter linked to. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done {{VI-tiny}} added in the gallery of other versions (example). Not very noticeable, but present. Thanks for the tip! --Myrabella (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

New set of valued image set rules: draft

Supplemental: I've gone ahead and drafted a new set of valued image set rules. Please review and discuss! --MichaelBueker (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Michael, I like your initiative in this. I've made some quick changes/additions. Have not time to think much about it yet, in a few days perhaps...--Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Good job on the rule edits. Thank you for the explanation, Slaunger. I like the idea of photographing plants over their life-cycles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I copyedited the draft proposal a bit more, but I would appreciate if other regulars joined in on the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, you've made a very valuable work! :-) I would have some little alterations and/or questions. § 2: "In analogy to valued images, the scope defines a generic field or category within which the image is the most valuable example." => "within which the image" or ""within which the set"? § 3: "Is static" => I understand the idea, but I am a bit embarrassed by the word "static" (I try to find another suggestion).
I agree with your comments Myrabella. I have addressed the image/set issue in §2. Also, after having thought about the static term, I agree this is not spot on, and I actually think the static thing is covered already by the complete § and the examples mentioned in the preamble. I have tried to copyedit the proposal accordingly, eliminating the perhaps confusing static term. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am afraid that something is missing now, the idea of coherence. The sentences "The order of the set is unambiguous for sets illustrating processes and no image could be added or taken away to improve the quality of the set." are rather important IMO. The §3 isn't enough, because we need to distinguish sets from simple galleries. That reminds me another idea you once expressed ("[...] the same individual, under the same light conditions on the same location [...]") => a sort of stylistic unity, ideally by the same photographer? So maybe could we replace "static" by "coherent", and add a few words about the overall unity. --Myrabella (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see your point, something is missing now. I like the coherent word. I do not know how widely understood it is though. I think you have some good thoughts about this, why don't you try and do a copyedit to it and get it more concise? I may be damaged by my background as a physicist, but what kind of association does "entangled" bring forth, as that is perhaps another somewhat similar quality? I think of the images in a set as being entangled, but that may just be my twisted, entangled mind playing me a trick...--Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I copyedited the draft as you suggested. I propose "consistent" rather than "coherent", because my dictionnary defines this word like this: "marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts", coherent and uniform" "and "not liable to or capable of change" ; that seems close to what we seek, doesn't it? --Myrabella (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought "harmony", which Myrabella added, best captured the essence, as I understand it. So I intended to make just that one change, but got carried away, I fear. But, perhaps some portion of my rewrite will be helpful. It was a pleasure to look into a bit of the history of image sets. I was tempted to use Category:Haystacks_by_Claude_Monet, but these paintings do not satisfy our criteria because they are not complete. They are good gallery, in our terminology, and illustrate a haystack better than a single painting. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Walter, the draft is clear and easier to read now! I would add just a precision: "Often, only a single [but essential] aspect will vary among the members of a set". The new rules give more precise guidelines and can apply to more topics too—that's fine. They can work for sets nominated within, e. g., building scopes. --Myrabella (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) I removed a single word ("pleasing") from the harmony section. For instance, I have an image set on my harddrive depicting the process of skinning a seal in Greenland, which I am considering to upload. I think some users would find such a set rather revolting, although it is a part of daily life and a necessity for getting food on the table, in the environment it was taken. I would consider such a set as having a suitable and relevant scope, but I doubt it would be considered "pleasing" by most. I am also in doubt whether the harmony word gives too many associations to the subject having to be visually pretty or beautiful? As a non-native speaker I am in doubt if this association of mine is a representative one? Lastly, I appreciate very much the pleasant constructive atmosphere we are developing/evolving this guideline in, with several editors participating in the copyediting. I think it is a very good process we have here. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Homogeneous" then, rather then "harmonious"? --Myrabella (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, i think that would be better. Other alternatives could be "cohesive" or "interconnected"? --Slaunger (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point, Slaunger. I think a set about an unpleasing topic could be harmonious in presentation, but some may wrongly apply the adjective to the content. To do so would disallow the work by Hieronymus Bosch. I tried "homogeneous" and made Myrabella's suggested change. "Compatible", "coherent", "congruent", "unified" and "connected" are other related adjectives. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I think your small edit is an improvement. --Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too. Just two further remarks: a) "There cannot be both a valued image and a valued image set of the same scope. They may compete for the status in a most valued review."=> is this kind of MVR really possible? b) Before implementing these new rules, please, oh please automate the closure of sets (fully by hand until now)! --Myrabella (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. a) I'm not sure that it does any harm to have both a VI and a VI set with same scope. I think it is a bit silly to have the same image in both, but I'm inclined to remove this stricture and leave the matter to the reviewers. b) While it is a good idea to automate the closure of sets, I don't think clarifying evaluation criteria is or should be dependent on automation. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you: renewing the criteria and automating the sets closure don't need to be interdependent actions. I am just a bit afraid that new clearer rules will augment the number of sets nominated... and the work of the contributors who will have to close the promoted ones. My remark was a plea, not a compulsion ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I finished closing a VI set just now (my own). It was complicated plus I made a couple of mistakes that I had to correct. Unfortunately, the VICbot code is not simple. Please see User:VICbot/source for the details. Perhaps if the set volume increases, User:Dschwen can be persuaded to automate closing. In the meantime, I'll try to do my share. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, many thanks ! About the new rules, what is the next stage now, and what must we do? --Myrabella (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to touch up the proposal some more, until it is consistent and complete (no pun intended ;-)). Then, when we all (meaning Slaunger, Myrabella, Walter and myself) have given our okay, I think we should take the proposal to the Village Pump and present it as our work and proposal as a team. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
What are the touchups needed? I agree that an announcement on COM:VP would be relevant telling that a more concise set of guidelines for valued image sets are now available. The VIC pages have been translated to a few more languages. It would be relevant to contact the original translators and ask them to make localized version to existing languages. The existing guidelines also needs to be tweaked a little to correct how reference is made to the set guidelines. The set guideline should also be added to the VI side bar template for navigating amongst guideline pages. Can't participate myself the next 2.5 weeks as I am on the way out of the door for a longer trip. --Slaunger (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs to spend a little more time dealing with non-photographic works. It has two photographic examples, but none related to paintings or engravings. If I might point to my VISes: Valued_image_set:_Thespis,_opera shows all known contemporary images of a lost opera. These images have been used extensively in scholarly discussion of the opera, and, while by different authors, form a complete set. Valued_image_set:_The_Hunting_of_the_Snark is by the same artist, and is complete as all the engraved illustrations by Holliday (the original artist) for a notable work of literature. It leaves out the embossed covers, which are in a very different style due to the different medium (and weren't included in reprints, annoyingly).
This latter raises an interesting point: Arguably, such a set could be expanded, with a slight broadening of the implied scope. Many featured sets could be. I think that a clear, reasonable selection criteria is more important than quibbling over whether it would ever be possible to add another image.
To deal with a situation already mentioned in the proposed criteria: the evolution of a city over time, I think it's clear that, for a sufficiently old city, there's always the possibility of additional material. A set of that type should be accompanied by a rationale explaining why the selected images do a good job of showing the stages of the evolution.
Perhaps the easiest way to deal with this is simple: Add a line to the VISC template: Selection criteria: - for some sets this may be obvious, for others it might not be, however, requiring a good selection criteria would deal with most issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added a counter-proposal at User_talk:MichaelBueker/VISC_draft, in its own section. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Adam Cuerden's proposition is really worth reading and discussion. MichaelBueker hasn't been active in Commons since few weeks, but would someone begin this discussion? I'd prefer not to be the first one—as a matter of fact, I haven't nominated a VISC till now (but I've reviewed some of them). --Myrabella (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If noone objects... (Valued Image set rules)

I'm going to go ahead and add a "selection criteria" line to the VISC template. That way people are encouraged to say how the set was assembled. I'll give this until Friday to be commented on. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't yet, your proposition is worth discussion. But Michael has been offline last weeks, Slaunger has just come back recently, and I won't be here next week so could you wait a bit? Your proposition is interesting and has to be discussed within the new set of VIS rules draft. I find particularly interesting your thought about showing evolution through time; that reminds me of this previous VISC—unsuccessful. --Myrabella (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The issue is that noone is discussing: This is a small move forwards that can be done outside of the main reform proposals, and is fairly important information to a set either way. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You have been kindly asked to wait. Lycaon (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The idea seems good to me, and I bear it, but we need a broader consensus --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for opening the discussion. I think that this interesting proposition must be seen in its completeness and coherence ;-) => please look at User talk:MichaelBueker/VISC draft, where it is fully exposed. --Myrabella (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Geocoding

I think we should modify the wording of this requirement slightly: There's always been a tendency to insist on geocoding in cases where it adds nothing to the image. I think that we need to make it explicit that geocoding is only required when it adds to the image's value: For instance, a native plant in the wild gains value from geocoding. A cultivated plant in a botanic garden can gain value. A cultivated plant in your garden is an invasion of privacy to geocode, and adds no value whatsoever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's taken many phtographs of plants I'd be cautious of geocoding a plant in the wild, many of the locations require careful preparation before entering and after leaving. Additionally conservation of rare or endangered species depends on people not knowing the location of secific populations beyond a generalised area. Gnangarra 06:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Toponymy

I would like to suggest an addition to the scope guidelines. Basically what I'd suggest is to have a country (or large city) mentioned to a series of non-biological scopes where location of the subject is not clear from its name. More specifically, churches, castles, mountains, towns, etc. The scope could have the form xxx, yyy. Where xxx would be the usual scope (name of the village, building or glacier e.g.) followed by yyy which would e.g. be Sweden, Jerusalem, Maryland or some other reasonably well-known place. Ideas? Lycaon (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fair, even though the images are in fact geocoded. I would rather say mappable than non-biological. In cases of e.g. a cloud, a mineral or a machine location is often irrelevant, but for a coral reef or a tree on an estate could a location mark come in handy. V-wolf (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
To begin with this initial suggestion, I agree with the idea. Having an indication of a raher well-known location of the subject in the scope of such nominations may help further users. --Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the point of a scope is to allow people to search through the list of scopes them for material they want, adding relevant clarification and additional search terms to the scope makes it more useful. Examples:

basic scope better scope bad scope
Stem cutting Vegetative propagation by stem cutting
[Vegetative propagation is too broad for one image to cover, but this helps find images related to it]
Stem cutting of a rose after five days
[Overly specific]
Housefly Housefly (Musca domestica)
[Common name + Scientific name]
Housefly in Stockholm, Sweden
[Irrelevant detail]
Old Sarum Ruins of Old Sarum, Salisbury, England
[Explain location by common British custom of nearest large city, state what Old Sarum is]
A photograph of Old Sarum in June
[Mere description of the image]
Arthur's Seat Arthur's Seat, Edinburgh, Scotland
[Give location]
Arthur's Seat from Salisbury Crag
[Too specific; confusing if you don't know Edinburgh]
The Hunting of the Snark [Set nomination] Henry Holiday's illustrations to The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll [Set nomination]
[Gives lots more search terms, is slightly more specific, but this specific set of illustrations is notable anyway]
Illustrations by various artists for The Hunting of the Snark
[Likely to fail to be a coherent set]

Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Housefly (Musca domestica)": the proper formatting is "Musca domestica (Housefly)". Plus the links in the scopes. --Eusebius (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I've usually seen it written the other way. As for lack of links - well, it wasn't really relevant to the point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Just referring to the current formatting rules. --Eusebius (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
For consistency with the botanical format, I'd like to see the linked scope as the first item, followed by the location, disambiguation, or additional search terms. I'm a bit concerned about adding another rule, however. I see a fair number of badly formatted scopes with the current rules. Adam Cuerden's entry for Musca domestica is a good example of this problem and it is by a capable and experienced editor that I respect. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • An additional question about scope wording for locations: in which langage should they be written? In "original version" or in English? It may depend on the notoriety of the site/building, and on the alphabet (Latin or not), but it's sometimes delicate to find the most useful wording for further users. Examples of scopes: original name (1, 2, 3), mixed (1, 2), in international English only (1, 2 (about this last one, I am not sure that this site is mostly known under this name)). --Myrabella (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Having trouble with templates

My nom seems to have something wrong, however, when I edit it, nothing appears ant different from the others. Please help (and then tell me if you can fix it). Thanks, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When editing the VICs page, one can read: "<!-- DO NOT ADD NEW NOMINATIONS AT THE TOP -->" so please, don't add new nominations at the top of the candidate list but at the end. --Myrabella (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of {{support}} votes

I know on FPC, a nomination needs several support votes to be featured. Is this true with VICs, or does it only need one {{support}} vote to make it a VI? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer on Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. --Myrabella (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PLZ remove VI Tag

Recently i came to the conclusion that the VI Tag doesn't worth a cent. Since im the creator of the images File:Mahuri.svg and File:Anime Girl.svg i want you to remove the tag from the images. Since as everyone knows, an illustration of a japanese term can't be made by a german artist and valuable. So i want you to remove this tag from all of my images, if present. --Niabot (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Sorry, but those images are no longer "yours", from the moment you have uploaded them to Commons and assigned a license. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You should know it better. I granted many rights to everyone, but im still the author of this images and have personal rights. (Re)read the laws and licences. --Niabot (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Your rights on the picture have nothing to do with the fact that it has been assessed as "valuable" on Commons. You can require that your name be attached to the picture (attribution), but I wonder what kind of personal right allows you to forbid that some arbitrary text, tag, seal..., not libelous in any way and rather "laudative" on the contrary, be associated to your freely licensed work. If you think there are better illustrations for the corresponding scope, please point them and they'll be reviewed against the current VIs. --Eusebius (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have also the right that my name is not mentioned in an other context. (German copyright law § 93 UrhG, and also stated inside the license 4.b. Otherwise the license will lose its effect and the pictures have to be deleted.) Now try to separate the tag from my name without infringig with the other rights. --Niabot (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope?...

I'm not very familiar with VI, I want to nominate this image within one of these scopes: photomontage, image composite or photo manipulation/photo editing. but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The best way to test it is to try a nomination, with the scope that seems the most fitted to you. --Myrabella (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right :) I should try it...   ■ MMXX  talk  11:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic content in FPC: poll

A poll is running in FPC talk page about pornographic and explicit sexual content (here). Please participate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Geocoding (yet again)

The issue with criterion 5 (geolocation) is that it has to be clear and unambiguous (there is not such a thing as everyone can see). To avoid discussion one should do one of the next two things for a VI nomination:

  1. Geocode (if this is done reliably everything is fine, but has to be checked → cf Cultus Lake nom).
  2. Add an indication on the file that it is a studio/lab image or that there is another compelling reason why geolocation is not appropriate. There are several ways to comply with the latter: (i) just mention the words studio image, lab picture or something similar; (ii) state the reason why geocoding is not appropriate (e.g. privacy concerns, rare/protected species); (iii) add a non-geocoding category (e.g. Category:Location not applicable). The author/uploader of the image should add the for him/her least intrusive method.

Drawings (SVG) are evidently exempt from geocoding by their nature. Artwork, if in public places, should have a geocoding for the museum/gallery.
Lycaon (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Please reformulate the scope"

What does it mean? The guy who added this comment on all my nominations does not answer on their talkpage. Pitke (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but This scope, "Dartmoor Pony", was acceptable, and it's a horse breed name just like "Icelandic Horse" is. Trying to rescope the other... Pitke (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is VIC dying?

What is happening with VIC? I once nominated three VICs at once, and not one got a single vote, support or otherwise. Of the 24 active VICs, eight are from Rama's trip to the museum. The only active reviewers now seem to be Archaeodontosaurus, Lycaon, Yann, George Chernilevsky, a few other semi-active people, and myself. Compare this with the number of people active on QIC and FPC. I find this trend very disturbing, is there anything we can do to reverse it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The project has always had far fewer reviewers than the QI project. 5-6 active reviewers is the number I remember from the period I was very active. Since it is a small project, the periods of activity/inactivity of each contributor have more impact on the overall activity. --Eusebius (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
For your knowledge, the situation was more worrying some mounths ago , but the VI project has survived and grown (e.g., only 23 images promoted in Novembrer 2009, already 28 this month; 40 images promoted in June 2009, 57 in June 2010). As far as I'm concerned, I will be too busy until the first week of August to review VICs properly, but I don't think that the VI project is dying. By the way, I think you can add Ikar.us in your count of active reviewers. --Myrabella (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I contributed one first picture (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Muenster-100720-15883-Zoo.jpg) and learned that VIC ist much more complicated for the users as QI. Perhaps this is one problem. Another problem is named here. Perhaps the description of the criteria and the script for contributors could be a bit easier. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When VI was started, an effort was made to distinguish VI from the other reviews, FP and QI. One distinction was the geolocation criterion which has raised the visibility of this important work. Another was the relaxation of minimum image size and quality. Personally, I find VI easier to use than QI, but it would be helpful to revisit the criteria and process again now that we have some experience to better inform such a discussion. Also, there is the matter of automating the closure of VI sets, a much wished for, but not implemented feature.Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I think its largely due to the crash of FPC. I haven't been checking commons as much due to bad feelings springing from that; it wouldn't surprise me if that happened to others too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with this project that's for sure. As if there is no life because the candidates list is somehow blocked. And this is not because of the difficulties in reviewing the photos, this is because most of the people don't understand the meaning of the project. Maybe the word “valued” is misunderstood here. I would like to explain it in this way: Me and the people I enrol to contribute to wikis have more than a hundred articles in variety of languages prepared for wikipedias that we cannot release because there are no images of the subjects in commons. This explains the meaning of the VI - informative photos that editors stand in need of, images of places and events that are out of the usual tourist routes. Since me and my team don't recognise articles without a single informative image this project is very important for us. The lack of photos of non mainstream subjects block some wikipedias. The english one solve the problem with the so called “fair use” but there are wikipedias in countries where some single clerk with power prohibit using it because he just do not understand the meaning of the idea “fair use”. So people, this project is not to stimulate taking shots of the Eiffel Tower or Niagara, we have thousands of them. This project is to stimulate taking informative shots of the city halls in Cumbria for instance or taking shots of churches in The “Gorizia statistical region”. The other reason of the project is to stimulate searching of places where free shots of famous people can be taken, places such as film festivals or some campaigns. I mean people that have place in wikis. These are valuable photos. Of course, images of places in the world that are difficult to be reached are always appreciated. Finaly, I'm going to buy a bottle of fine scotch to this one who upload some good photo of Amanda Plummer ;) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the list is blocked because of some not constructive comments from the reviewers instead of help the proposed subjects going ahead.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the VIC project very much, even it is difficult to understand the purpose really. I don't agree with the interesting opinion above. The project is not to "stimulate" anything. It is to have the most valuable pictures for an encyclopedical use (even city halls or famous persons, yes). Since my beginning here, I say that "scope" is THE problem. But not only. I see that some self made specialists try to make nominations very difficult, by harassing the nominator with questions (please add this word, no, this one, or this other, the scope is too "this", or not enough "that", blabla). You change as requested, and the reviewers forgot to follow their own comments . See this for a good (and "fresh") example. I've seen some special attempts too: you are slowly asked to "move" the description of your file, until a "good" competitor (already in "Commons" can be nominated against yours ! I'm happy to became criticisms when relevant, or when useful for improvement... Well, let's continue the game, but without illusions--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you like the VIC project but I'm sorry you feel harassed. Several of the reviewers thought that "leaves" was the best scope for File:Araucaria subulata JdP.jpg. (I know that I said foliage, but I would have been happy with leaves). I think they were trying to be helpful, but I understand that it is frustrating. We should try to be helpful and encourage one another. The original proposal says, "A VI is highly valuable for other Wikimedia projects, putting a lower emphasis on the technical quality." Please see User:Slaunger/Valuable_Images. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This special case is only an example. I'm not sure I agree with your vision of this specific review. No "several" reviewers thought that "leaves" etc. Only one, then he agreed with "branch", then you asked for "foliage". Another reviewer asked for many other subscoping... I added "Branch" in the scope, and added "Branch and foliage" in the description page of the file... Maybe the word "harrasment" is a bit harsh, but...I think it would have been better to say that this image did not describe well the subject for many reasons easyly explanable. Well, no problem at the end.


I'm very happy with the very clear first proposal of Slaunger I didn't know... Please notice that I'm still looking now for the word "SCOPE" in this page...;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that most thought Slaunger's work was exceptional and we miss him since he has become less active. Please review Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants, if you haven't done so. It suggests leaves or foliage as suitable subscopes. That is what Alvesgaspar, Lycaon and I were suggesting. The scope is somewhat important because it defines the set of images that we are examining. Also, it invites confusion, if later, an image of the same species is nominated with the subscope "leaves", and we already have a subscope "branches". The image should be well-described and consistent with the scope, but otherwise it is not part of the VI evaluation process. But, you made an important point and I'm trying to be less picky about the scope and more clear and consistent in my reviews. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I just received some very positive vibes on my hibernating brain wave receiver! Thanks Walter and Jebulon for your kind wordsSmile. Yes, the scope thing has never been easy to grasp. Somehow I think it is needed to define the set of relevant competing images. I realize it causes quite some problems due to subtleties in the exact phrasing of words in English. This is rather alienating for nominators who do not have English as their native language. I can only encourage reviewers to be helpful and a little patient with nominators in good faith who have difficulties getting the scope right. I think most reviewers are, but there is always room for improvement. --Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Slaunger, what a nice surprise! Yes, Walter is right, we miss you. About the VI project, I like to practice something you wrote in 2008: "The VI candidates forum can be an entertaining place, where reviewers may learn quite a lot about new domains and types of images"—that's truly true! Some further words to reply to a remark Jebulon made: IMO, reviewers don't encourage nominators to change their scope with the perfidious intention to point out a hidden opponent. As for me, when I review a VIC whose scope doesn't seem suitable, I try to discuss a proper scope with the nominator, and then I begin to check if the nominated image is really the most valuable one for the scope defined all together. I would be sad if you thought I don't act with good faith... but never mind, that wouldn't prevent me to stay rather demanding with VICs :-) One thing I would like to highlight: very often, nominated images end the review improved, with a more complete description, an accurate geocode, precise categories, even when they are not promoted (in addition, the promoted ones are often inserted in WP articles during the review). A very last word: the Araucaria image could be renominated, with a proper scope. --Myrabella (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Myrabella, being demanding, yet helpful is perfect for VI. I have always seen you as such a user and a tremendous asset for the VI project. I have only positive things to say about your enthusiasm and presence in the project based on my prior interactions with you, when I was active in the project. I have not followed VI recently, and I do therefore not have an opinion about the present health state of the project. --Slaunger (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, part of this little drama was caused by my lack of attention (I'm really busy right now) and I already apologized to Jebulon. Anyway, I don't think that VIC is dying and believe that most reviewers and careful and competent in their assessments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it is now time for me to apologize too... My words were maybe a bit excessive, because I was a little angry (une de mes spécialités: la soupe au lait...)(maybe I was not fully wrong ?). I fact, I do not suspect anybody not assuming good faith (especially Myrabella, of course, but others too). There is no "drama" to me and at the end, I think we all follow the same way, with our own personalities and own "background". No worries then. If you agree, I will continue in VIC with the same idea : trying to offer to all users the "best" I can do. But the idea of "scope" is always a problem to me. I was reviewing recently an italian church by MrPanyGoff, and I think that this image could have a place as VI. But I had to point first the "rule" for scopes of churches, and it is a pity.
        Thanks everybody for this debate.--Jebulon (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)