Commons talk:Valued images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Pictogram voting info.svg This talk page is not heavily trafficked
Consider posting to Commons talk:Valued image candidates since it is the main talk page of this project.

Templates[edit]

This thread has been moved to Commons talk:Valued image candidates#Shall a multi-purpose award template be used instead of dedicated VI templates?. -- Slaunger 05:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template[edit]

We need to change it ;)

<!-- de -->[[Commons:Qualitätsbilder|{{#language:de}}]] |
en[[Commons:Value images|{{#language:en}}]] |
<!-- es -->[[Commons:Imágenes de calidad|{{#language:es}}]] |
<!-- fr -->[[Commons:Images de qualité|{{#language:fr}}]] |
<!-- ja -->[[Commons:高画質な画像|{{#language:ja}}]] |
pl[[Commons:Wartościowe grafiki|{{#language:pl}}]] |
<!-- ru -->[[Commons:Качественные изображения|{{#language:ru}}]] |
<!-- zh-hans -->[[Commons:优质图片|{{#language:zh-hans}}]] |
<!-- zh-hant -->[[Commons:優質圖片|{{#language:zh-hant}}]] |
{{edit|Template:Lang-Value}}

So, I will talk with transalators Przykuta 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was an error in Template:Lang-VI: I opened Template:Lang-QI when editing (a cut and paste error). Very confusing indeed. That is now fixed.
Translations are welcome, but maybe it is wise to hold the horses just a few days as I expect there will be some adjustments of the VI pages the first few days (especially when the first images are promoted, probably on June 3), which will lead to double work in keeping translations updated. Cheers, -- Slaunger 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope standarization[edit]

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

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

Scope is what makes this project valuable, so if the scopes aren't well organized and easy to navigate, it hurts the project. – flamurai 04:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure this will be seen here. Suggest re-posting on Commons talk:Valued image candidates (see note at top of this page). --MichaelMaggs 06:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done For further discussion, see Commons talk:Valued image candidates#Scope standarization – flamurai 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excluding video[edit]

I disagree on excluding video. Category:OLPC video has some very good free videos!--Kozuch (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest posting to Commons talk:Valued image candidates as not many are watching this page. As to your comment, video is not excluded because we do not like video. It is because the current criteria are targeted on images. That was the most simple to start out with. You are welcome to propose and help develop criteria, which can also be used for Valued Video (VV).-- Slaunger (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#January_5.2C_2009--Kozuch (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink Background[edit]

The pink backround color for candidate pages is distracting. Is is possible to change it with a neutral light gray?--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Graph on the main VI page[edit]

On May 2010, the number of promoted VI (107 for the moment) will excess the maximal number (100?) designed in the graph displayed on the main VI page :-D (or perhaps this maximum is automotically ajusted?) --Myrabella (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Please take a look at: Commons:Village_pump#QI/VI/FP_categories. Thanks - A.Savin 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to delete and censor image that is Featured Picture quality on multiple language Wikipedias[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

VI project needs reorganization, desperately[edit]

I'm afraid that the Valued Image initiative just lost me. The way I see it, the valued image promotions do not (any more) reflect the purposes as stated. To illustrate what I mean, check the number of valued images found in these categories:

  • Category:Cologne Cathedral - a cathedral recognized as UNESCO World Heritage with several hundreds of images in the category and its subcategories. According to FastCCI, there are three valued images among these (which happen to be quality and/or featured images as well).
  • Category:Sagrada Família - Gaudí's signature work is also UNESCO World Heritage with lots of images. According to FastCCI, there are no valued images among these.
  • Category:5 Kościelna Street in Bystrzyca Kłodzka - a certainly relevant, but less known building of cultural heritage. There are four images in this category, and three of them are VI.

One might say that the lack of VI in the first two cases is caused by people not suggesting more of the available images for promotion. Then again, I think that an abundance of VI as in the third item is what harms the project more (note that it is not my intention to imply that any of the promoted pictures is “bad” in any respect; also my examples above are picked more or less at random and many similar cases can be found by just flipping through past promotion lists).

One of the purposes of the VI project is “to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online”. So if such an author wants to use a nice image of Cologne Cathedral, they do not have to sift through tons of images until their head is spinning; rather they can rely on the helpful preselection of a few images (then again, they might wonder why it is always night in Cologne). But if such an editor is looking for a valueable image of 5 Kościelna Street in Bystrzyca Kłodzka that might be especially useful to illustrate something, it is only of little help for them if they have to pick an image out of three where without the promotions they'd have to pick one out of four images. Nor do I think that a house in a street is an example of a “difficult subject” that is “very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality”.

Personally, I think that the problem has to do mostly with the scopes. It seems to be (current) habit to always subscope buildings (including places, cemetries etc.) by viewing direction so that each may produce up to eight (N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW) scopes or maybe even more. I have already argued in the past that Commons:Valued image scope#Buildings in its current form suggests that usually at most a single scope per building is appropriate, possibly two (interior and exterior) for buildings like cathedrals, and “exceptionally” more scopes where “some part of a building is particularly worth of interest”, but the community seems to shrug that away. In fact, submitting an image without such specification seems to be frowned upon by the community even when this trivializes the question “Is this the most valued among twelve pictures?” to “Is this the most valued among one picture?”

While still acknowledgeing the idea and intent of the VI project, I am afraid that in its current form this intent cannot be fulfilled and I shall therefore ignore it henceforth. You may say: Who cares? But I still wanted express my discontent as above instead of just leaving silently, maybe things improve over time. --Hagman (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)