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.

Contents

[edit] Templates

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)

[edit] Template

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)

[edit] Scope standarization

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

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

Scope is what makes this project valuable, so if the scopes aren't well organized and easy to navigate, it hurts the project. – flamurai 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)

[edit] Excluding video

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)

[edit] Pink Background

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)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Valued_images"