User talk:MichaelBueker/VISC draft

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

This proposal aims to replace the current rules for Valued Image Sets, which are very brief to say the least. It was first drafted by MichaelBueker and Slaunger and has received valued input from Myrabella and Wsiegmund. Adam Cuerden has provided an extensive revision of the original criteria 3. and 4., now incorporated into 3..

The idea for new rules sprang up here in February 2010, the first draft was discussed here and here from March through April 2010. After almost half a year, I am hoping to revive the discussion here and finally get this thing rolling! --MichaelBueker (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued image set criteria[edit]

The concept of a valued image set (VIS) must not be confused with that of a gallery or a set nomination for featured pictures. A collection of images can be promoted as a valued image set when it is complete and consistent and illustrates a subject better than any single image could. Typical examples of sets could be time series of images, sequences in a process, or different works or objects from a common source.

Image sets have a long history. Famous examples include The Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō and The Seven Deadly Sins and the Four Last Things, a painting by Hieronymus Bosch of two sets.

A set should be coherent and complete as it stands. For another set to replace it, it should usually require either the selection criteria to be changed, a better version of one of the images to be found, or for new research or discoveries to add to what was previously believed to be complete. There cannot be both a valued image and a valued image set of the same scope. They may compete for the status in a Most Valued Review (MVR). The detailed criteria are as follows:

A valued image set:

1. Is the most valuable set of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.

The set should be the best way of illustrating the subject matter as defined by the scope. There should especially be no single image of equal or greater value.
For details, see Commons:Valued image value.

2. Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope.

In analogy to valued images, the scope defines a generic field or category within which the set of images is the most valuable example. The scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who is looking for a valued image set.
For details, see Commons:Valued image scope.

3. Has reasonable selection criteria, by which the set is reasonably coherent and complete.

Simply put, the selection criteria explain why the set makes sense as a set. The following is a list of common selection criteria, but is not meant to be exhaustive. Note that for many selection criteria, the order of the images within the set is important.
  1. Simple completeness: All the paintings by a painter, or in a defined set of works (such as the three paintings of a triptych); all the engravings in a certain edition of a book; all currently known illustrations of an event (as listed in a reliable source).
  2. Standard presentation: The convention in the field is to divide this process into certain stages; the set contains one image for each stage. For example: cell division by mitosis is divided into interphase, prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase, with some finer divisions within each phase. A set would either use the main divisions or the finer divisions, and would normally have one image for each.
  3. Each step of a process: Related to the above, but without standard divisions. A set of pictures illustrating a process should should have each step is well-illustrated, without any superfluous redundancy. For example, a set showing the recipe for Tiramisu would include all required actions (including, of course, soaking savoiardi biscuits in espresso). Showing multiple ways to reach the same goal can be beneficial, but this should be used with care, as it may cause confusion if it is not well-documented.
  4. Representative of the whole: Perhaps the hardest to justify: The scope is divided into sub-scopes, and the most representative image is selected for each. For example, every period in an artist's career might be represented by the most famous image from that period. Needs reasonably good documentation as to how the sub-categories are chosen, and how the image from each category is selected. Usually best done as individual nominations within the smaller scopes, but may be appropriate in some cases.
  5. Different views of the same object: For instance, a statue seen at various angles, or an animal seen in various poses. In this sort of set, it's particularly important that the images have some basic things in common, such as lighting and other stylistic issues, to turn them into a coherent whole.
  6. Historical overview: "These views of the city/building/whatever show how it changed over time. I've done a reasonable amount of research, and think this shows most of the major changes happening over this period." - In this case, the research stands in for completeness. If such research is impractical, consider nominating each image individually under a scope such as "X in the 18th century".
  7. Defined by scope: For example, if the scope is the changes in some location by season, then there should usually be one image per season. Changes from this should either be explained (e.g. "as the garden changes appearance radically during this season, I divided summer into early summer and late summer") or be made consistently (every season has an image for early and late in the season).
Some sets may find coherency in their completeness: If your set is a historical overview, or includes all contemporary depictions of an event, differing styles won't matter so much. However, in most other cases, the images that make up these sets should be consistent in style and coherent in presentation. This may mean that:
  1. It can help to have the images all be by a single author: A single author's ideas of aesthetics can help provide a coherency to the set.
  2. Sometimes, only a single—but essential—aspect will vary among the members of a set: For example, a set dealing with a certain species may depict the same individual, under similar lighting, at the same location, but with the various angles and close-ups that depict the important or distinguishing features of the species.

Additionally, each image in a valued image set must fulfil certain criteria just as as individual valued images. For the detailed definitions, refer to the valued image criteria. An image in a valued image set:

A. Must illustrate its subject well.

B. Is fully described on the image page.

C. Is geocoded, when relevant.

D. Is well categorized at an appropriate level.