Commons talk:Valued images

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.



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)[reply]



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}}]] |

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
✓ Done For further discussion, see Commons talk:Valued image candidates#Scope standarization – flamurai 06:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding video


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

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)[reply] (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Graph on the main VI page


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)[reply]



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


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)[reply]

VI project needs reorganization, desperately


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)[reply]

Certain editors are submitting many nominations from their home areas. As a result, they are in fact "shooting themselves in the foot" by devaluing all the VIs in their geographic area. It might well be worthwhile reminding editors about the mechanism used by users - the "Good Pictures" icon that comes up on the category page. Martinvl (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template Assessments


I would like to bring your attention to a problem with Valued Image parameter at the Template:Assessments. See the discussion. Does anybody know how to fix it? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Farmer in Hoi An


Why a picture of a farmer [reduced version to the right] is considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope: People of Hoi An (a city)? I really don't understand.--Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the size of the attached image as it intrudes into the next subsection. Martinvl (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MVR voting


At the moment, the process for voting in MVR elections has not been specified. I would like to propose that the following sentence be inserted to the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review just before the final sentence:

Approval voting (the process used for Wikimedia Foundation elections) is used for MFV voting. Nominators may vote in MVR elections.

I have suggested that nominators should be allowed to vote in an MVR as this will encourage them to create an MVR rather than to just push their own nomination. Martinvl (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl: are you also proposing then that we stop having "Oppose" and "Neutral" votes for MVRs, and just allow "Support" votes? DeFacto (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Yes - but you can support as many images as as you wish. I am also thinking about how to handle voting on the scope for an MVR. My current thinking is that the MVR would be divided into two parts - the scope discussion and the image discussion. The image discussion is already there. In the scope discussion, people can support or oppose the scope in the normal way except where an existing VI is being challenged in which case there is no discussion about the scope - it has already been agreed. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please make alternative suggestions, but one of the important things that I would like is the ability of the nominator to vote in an MVR as this would encourage somebody to put up an alternative image to one that is being proposed. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MVR closure malfunction


(Cross-posted to Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list#MVR closure malfunction)

On 5 November I closed 3 'Most Valued Reviews' ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade", "Gierymskich 8, Kłodzko" and "Lupinus pilosus (habitus)"), by following the steps detailed in Commons:Valued image closure#Closing most valued reviews. VICbot ran on 6 November and successfully extracted the processed candidates of the last 2 of my 3 closure attempts, but for the first ("Inveraray Castle south-west fascade"), only 1 of the 5 processed nominations was extracted.

This was my first attempt at closing an MVR, and I suspect I may have messed it up somehow. VICbot has run again several times since then, but the remaining Inveraray 4 still have not been extracted. I did put a message on Dschwen's talkpage (redirected from VICbot's talkpage) asking for help, but have had no response there.

Can anyone throw any light on what has gone wrong here and help to fix this mess please? DeFacto (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent "Valued image"


Currently, this is showing up as the latest "Valued image". It's obviously not a Valued image, but someone's poor-quality, uninteresting snapshot, and the alleged Valued image assessment writeup is obvious nonsense. Can someone please remove this image for Valued images and act accordingly to prevent a recurrence of this silliness? Thank you. I hope someone is reading this talk page and paying attention, because this guy is playing this site for a fool. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, also nominated for deletion as unused personal image(s). --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God someone monitored this talk page and took care of this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of videos and audios


In the section Commons:Valued_images#Eligibility there is a point about not allow neither videos or audio. Have a reason for that? This is powerful medias when we are talking about educational value, and this is our away to highlight educational value. We can't remove this restriction? And I already so some videos passing as VI, and makes sense. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek, Archaeodontosaurus, Llez, Jebulon, and Slaunger: @Charlesjsharp, Martinvl, XRay, and INeverCry: .. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Commons could have a new project for this, but I wouldn't want video/audio nominations mixed in with images. Also, see discussion above from 2009. 13:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC) [submitted by Charles Sharp].
I agree with Charles. Martinvl (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images, videos and audio are very different types of media, and I do not think they should be mixed in this initiative, which is designed specifically for still images. That isn't to say that there shouldn't be similar schemes for them too. I would support two new schemes: "Valued videos" and "Valued audio". DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton: The existing project is named Valued Images, and the review criteria are closely tied to the candidates being images and not videos or audio files. Templates are used, which resize images to a suitable review size for candidate images. A suitable review size for video is not necessarily the same, nor the review criteria. The existing templates are not at all suited for audio files. This does not mean, that I am against Valued Videos or Valued Audio, it is just separate projects with maybe some common objectives and processes, but with review criteria, templates and workflow adapted to these other media types. Bot assistence also needs to be taken into account in this process. It requires quite some thought to setup, such that it all works well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the technical matters involved and obviously trust those of you who do, but it's important for there to be some kind of "Valued Media" project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp, Martinvl, DeFacto, Slaunger, and Ikan Kekek: thanks for answering.
Slaunger, yes, but a moving image is a film... Quality Images accept videos, and also Feature Pictures... your answer back there was:
"The reason being that it would be too complicated to setup, to describe in the guidelines and that the number of media of this type seemed to be below a critical mass, which could feed a meaningful and lively review forum at a certain standard. Another issue is that due to the copyright restrictions on the more popular commercial video formats, like MPEG we are stuck with the more esoteric ogg format which is less well known, is less supported by various tools, and which has a rather steep learning curve to convert to from AVI on so on (I know the procedure, as I have a video here, you have to do an effort to get going). So, currently it is not in scope. As I see it, it could be made into an add-on side-project once VI has stabilized and is up and running. It will require quite an effort though to get up and running concerning all the practicalities of setting up such a project."
This things changed, webm is maybe the most popular online video format thanks to YT, and YT also created a path between people and online videos (and we are behind on this)...
And a person qualify to evaluate a valued image could also evaluate a video... and maybe audio. Now, if we separate this two fronts, how many will be evaluating those videos? Less people evaluating, less quality..
We accept GIFs... what's the difference between a GIF and a video? I can time lapse a scene and both create a video, or a GIF... the educational valued will be the same, with the possibility of a rewind, pause..., as necessary.
The effort to add some rules about videos, and maybe audio, is far from create a whole new project.
@Charlesjsharp and Martinvl: some reason to that? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 08:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't include GIFs in VI if I had a vote on the subject. Charles (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I think for sounds we don't really need the distinction between valued/quality/featured. I'd rather like to see Commons:Featured sounds being revived. --El Grafo (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded files from Wiki Science Competition 2017


Hi. I remind you all that I am making a list of the best images of WSC2017 here.

Please take a look if you like some of the proposed images and you think they fit a special scope. My time is quite limited but I can improve the categorization of some of the candidates if necessary.

All the uploaded pictures can be found in this category. it will take time to improve categorization and titles but some of the jurors will also help.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scopes with only one image


Does it make sense to vote upon scopes that contain only a single picture? --Reinhard Müller (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my view not, as per definition that is best image from what we've got, so the VI tag doesn't help. It also devalues the VI tags overall - since anything can be framed in a narrow enough scope to exclude all other images. --ELEKHHT 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Header templates for categories


Hello! There are two similar header templates for the valued images categories: {{VI-cat}} and {{Collection of valued images}}. The first one is the newer one, the last one is similar to the corresponding templates {{Collection of featured pictures}} and {{Collection of quality images}}. What's the reason for the newer one "VI-cat" and why are both valued images templates used for the valued images categories? --XRay 💬 07:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]



{{Helpme}} Nominees can close VI discussion? —MdsShakil (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agustín Lara, circa 1950s.jpg


A copyrightd version of File:Agustín Lara, circa 1950s.jpg was uploaded and approved as a VI. I don't know the procedure, but that file should be delisted. Tbhotch 23:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:José Alfredo Jiménez en 1957.jpg Tbhotch 23:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]