Commons:Valued image candidates/Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg

Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Charles (talk) on 2018-03-27 22:03 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Emberiza impetuani impetuani (Lark-like bunting)
Used in	Global usage
Reason	Promoted image was incorrectly identified. Apologies. Charles (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC) -- Charles (talk)
Review (criteria)	Support I think all two photos in the category by Charles can be promoted, these are really amazing works and both fully depicts the scope. Voltmetro 08:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)  Question, if this is an MVR, why are the 2 nominations (this and this) in 2 different scopes and 2 different linked categories? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I think it was confused, and that nomination about you asked was identified wrong (as Emberiza impetuani instead of correctly Crithagra flaviventris). So that file was promoted 2 years ago with another scope and yesterday it was nominated again with the correct scope. Nevertheless, category Emberiza impetuani impetuani lost the VI (because the scope was incorrect) and this picture should replaced them. Voltmetro 09:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC) So it shouldn't be an MVR then, just a straight nomination for Emberiza impetuani impetuani? Is Charles aware of this? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I nominated the left hand image and it was promoted, but it had been incorrectly identified and is now renamed as a canary species. Hence I assumed that the correct process was to start a MVR with a correctly-identified image. I am not aware of a 'removal' process for a VI. Is there one? Charles (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Ah, I don't know, but if it gets promoted again it'll be a VI in both the old and new scopes. The easiest way would be an MVR against a bird which actually is in the old scope, but without one I'm not sure what the answer is. Perhaps Archaeodontosaurus might have encountered this problem before. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)  Comment The situation is complex but not insoluble. Generally speaking, Charles thinks he is mistaken for the first image and wants to free the scope to promote the second. I am not sure that the Bot can handle this situation. But we can solve the problem manually, after we have voted and the usual time has passed. In a particular way there is a problem with the first image. The female of Yellow Canary is very little colored, but it is practically always a yellow spot at the base of the tail. In exceptional cases there is no yellow coloring. But these are rare cases. This image is not typical of the female of this species. It could be elected with a restrint scope "brown form" but not with the proposed one. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC) The simplest solution would be to make a MVR with the old scope for the first image and not change anything for the second. The second image will be promoted as one can hope. The first will be declined by the Bot. In a second time if Charles wish it can represent the declassified image with a new scope as it has the right. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I'm not nominating the canary image for VI Archaeodontosaurus. Charles (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: In this case it is simpler: it is not necessary to remove the image but only replace the initial scope and the procedure of MVR will be able to be done naturally. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Yellow canary (Crithagra flaviventris) female.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Lark-like bunting (Emberiza impetuani impetuani) 2.jpg: Promoted. <-- ---- DeFacto (talk). 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)