Review
(criteria) |
* Oppose Per COM:VIS links in the scope should be made to a Commons gallery only if a Commons category is not available. Please link your scope to the image category to direct reviewers to a full comparison of all images of this scope in Commons (appear to be 3) rather than a select gallery of 1 image that you created. Have faith in the guidelines and the process. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)  Support with scope link to Category:Rhagastis gloriosa species. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The problem is that photos should be compared to every other photo in scope when we evaluate them to determine which is best in scope. Bloat can be addressed when subcategories can be created, but for the purpose of judging which is best in scope, if a bloated category needs to be linked, I submit that it should be linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- All galleries are linked: The link is in the gallery. We are debating for 1 click.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I share your concern, Archaeodontosaurus, of there being too many images in some popular categories. In other venues, my personal proposal was that Commons shoudl establish a process to remove images of dubious value. Unfortunately, when I have raised this approach, it did not find support…☹.
- Until Commons gains better consensus on how best to deal with too many images in popular categories, the resolution remains to sub-categorize bloated categories into meaningful sub-categories that can be linked to VI scopes.
- It should be noted that a bloated category is not the case here. There are only 7 images in total for the Category:Rhagastis gloriosa species, of which you are nominating 3 for VI as different sub-scopes – male dorsal, ventral and both sides. For me personally, one VI for the species would be enough, but I recognize that these sub-scopes are meaningful and will review and support them if they conform to COM:VIS guidelines.
- The main reason to support COM:VIS guidelines linking scopes to categories is to support the claim that your image is the most valuable in all of Commons at the time of VI nomination, and not limited to a lesser claim of most valuable in a custom gallery.
- IMHO, the best path forward here is to link your scope to the appropriate species category and continue to do so going forward. By my observation, you are the only one, active in this forum, who links to galleries that you created.
- It should be noted that you do nice work in creating your galleries. I find them well done, professional and educational. If you want to share a gallery link, it could be put in the supporting “Reason” line of the VI nomination to educate and support your nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The formalism of the project also involves the Muséum de Toulouse and Wikipedia France. We cannot modify without several meetings, but it is enough that the scope point on the category, this point seems to me asceptable, but only for the scope of VI; tomorrow the next butterfly scope will be formatted like this. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good picture, valuable and used. I don't understand the problem, why this excellent photo should be worthless. Furthermore, in my opinion several pictures of one and the same object can be valuable. In this context, it is remarkable that the same critic repeatedly claims that he can determine what is right and what is wrong. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My observation, Spurzem, is that you have a very good understanding. No one has said that this image is not VI in Commons. What is in discussion is adherence to the process by which a VI rating is assigned which must follow the guidelines of Commons and be the same as used to assign VI ratings to the images that you nominate.
- All images are valuable to the photographer who took them, but only those that judged by consensus to meet the 6 criteria of COM:VICR are Commons Valued Images. This includes the difficult #2 – definition of the scope for VI nomination, with guidelines further described in COM:VIS.
- If you image is judged VI, then it becomes the most valuable in Commons, until a better one with that scope comes along and competes successfully against it in MVR. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRDN711: You feel obviously as the supreme guardian of the rules, whether rightly or wrongly is an open question. However, please do not overdo it. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
