User talk:Slaunger/Valuable Images

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


What do you think of this?[edit]

Purpose of this talk page[edit]

This talk page is dedicated to discussing the Valuable Images Proposal. Discussions from various different pages have been moved to here to centralize the discussions. -- Slaunger 21:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial suggested clarifications of the VI concept[edit]

This section has been moved here from elsewhere to keep the discussion at one place.

Great proposal :-)

Am I dreaming, you like my proposal?! ;-)
  1. ) I would not demand that the description be in English as this will feel exclusionary to non native speakers or those without English all together. We can always track down a translation once images are submitted, to suit reviewers.
    Good point. I have changed to preferably in English and asked that at least the language template is used when this is not possible.
  2. ) I think geocoding of non fixed objects is silly, unless the photographer thinks it has some significance (I think any argument about building up a distribution database for insects, animals and plants is slightly silly as large numbers of sightings are needed for that to be significant). But yes I think location is an important descriptive item.
    On this particular one I think I disagree. I foresee that an autogenerated distribution map can be autogenerated on a species gallery page in the future and I think it would be really cool to see where the images were from on a map, even if the number of observations are sparse. It also gives the possibility to study regional variances of species and so on. The more data we have and the sooner we start adding the geodata the better are the possibilities.
    Might be interesting, but of little value ;-) (slight bias regarding location of commons photographers and where they like to wander :-). I am also waiting for a bullet from certain geo-coding people as I have created a {{Object location}} template for the location of things rather than the camera (personally I think an image can have both :-). --Tony Wills 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    He, he. Well, in principle I think the object location should be on the gallery page or Category page of the subject, but I also acknowledge that there are times where it is simply not relevant to have a category/gallery for the subject, where, I guess your template could be relevant. -- Slaunger 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    Autogenerated distribution maps for species can also be a good way to find mislabeled images, when photos were taken well outside expected range of a given species.--Jarekt 18:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. ) We could demand more specifics in the description requirement, eg what, when, where, who, why.
    If the {{information}} template is used consistently for the VIs we will have the when from the date field in standardized ISO format suitable for making queries. The who (the photographer) is in the author field, the where is in the geocode and for the latter what and why I have elaborated a little on what i expect in the description field.
    The date field often reflects the date uploaded, we might want to specify that we want the date the image was created. The reason I mentioned 'suitable variations' is that some subjects have specific templates they use (eg stamps) which are also appropriate. --Tony Wills 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. ) Is the 'first of its kind' retrospective, ie is the first image uploaded of something eligible even when more have been subsequently uploaded (or are uploaded after the item's submission to VI)?
    No, you are right. I have changed it to "most valuable at the time of nomination".
  5. ) I presume all images, including historical etc are eligible (not just those created by Commoners)
    Yes, i have added a few extra clauses to elaborate on what can be nominated by whom.
  6. ) I am worried by 'first of its kind' as being a requirement for all images. I think it should be a criteria that would make an image 'valuable' but not an exclusive requirement. eg If someone has uploaded a very good image to replace a very poor image of exactly the same thing is this not 'valuable'
    Yes, you are right. I have rephrased accordingly.
  7. ) How precisely do we define 'its kind', ie is the first housefly seen today in my backyard specific enough, or is this requirement the first housefly ever uploaded to commons? What about the first housefly photographed in the space-station? ...
    Yes, this is difficult. Many species, especially sub-species are so much alike, that they look very similar on photos. I have therefore added distinct to try and emphasize this point, but I do not know if this is sufficiently precise?...
    Yes, I think it has to be a little vague, the community can decide what is valuable at any particular point in time. --Tony Wills 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Over-all I think its a great proposal, and I support it :-) --Tony Wills 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad to hear that. Thank you. -- Slaunger 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be supprised that we basically agree :-) --Tony Wills 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, not really. I had the impression that, after all, you were sensible, so it does not really surprise me ;-) I was just recalling the greath Ph-x debate, which ended in...nothing. -- Slaunger 21:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Should QI be transformed to VI, what is valuable, and do we have the resources for VI?[edit]

This section has been moved here from elsewhere to keep the discussion at one place.-- Slaunger 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, though I'm of the opinion that QI currently isn't very useful (various reasons pointed out here. I think we should changed QI into something like your proposal instead of adding another category. Calibas 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your points there, QI does what it was set up for, QI is not about valuable images for Wikipedia, I think we may fundamentally disagree about the role of commons too. --Tony Wills 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Making such dramatic changes to the scope of QI is like wanting to turn a super tanker on a plate. It would be problematic to change the QIs so much as the meaning of previous and current QIs would be so different. Rather completely get rid of the value discussion at QI and focus that energy on VI. I think a lot of currently frustrated QI/FP users would find that VI is just what they need to get the focus on what is really important: Valuable content of the images. -- Slaunger 10:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see two main problems with the VI proposal:

  1. ) very subjective, might be lots of controversy over what's valuable (maybe everything is valuable to someone!),
    Yes, I think some time and discussions need to be spend on figuring out what is valuable and what is not. I am trying to assemble an example directory which also compares VI to FP and QI to clarify what VI is and what it is not. -- Slaunger 10:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. ) Does anyone have time for yet one more project? :-).
    If we drain the resources from the currently active pool of FP and QI users I think not. However, I think the VI forum can attract new enthusiatic users, mainly users who primarily spend their resources on other Wikimedia projects and mostly use Commons as a place to upload and find content for use in Wikipedias. And also users who have previously left the project could be attracted by VI. -- Slaunger 10:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But I think the best thing to do is roll it out and see how things go and tweak the guidelines where things don't work in practice ... probably be slow to start with but I expect a pool of people will adopt it if they see it as useful :-). You can advertise it on the Village pump, and plug it during FP and QI reviews/votes ("not good enough for FP but it would make VI", "high quality image, I'd expect it would make VI too" :-) --Tony Wills 04:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. I think I will spend a little more time here to add some good examples and adjust the proposal into a more mature state before posting it to COM:VP. -- Slaunger 10:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe differentiate more from QI, perhaps include media, advise regarding Village Pump[edit]

This input was initiated elsewhere and has been moved to here. -- Slaunger 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger! Thanks for your message. This is a very interesting idea. It could definitely have a role, but I think you need to differentiate it more from QI. Maybe criteria 1 (topic) needs to be stricter. Both projects will be stronger if there is as little overlap as possible. [Maybe also make it "valuable media", incl. sound and video, instead of just images?]

Yes, I agree that the topic clause needs some elaboration to make it clearer and more distinct from QI. With respect to including media, I briefly thought about it, but I think VI should be for Images only because
  1. I would like it to be parallel to the QI and FP systems, and I think many users will find the concept confusing if it included other media such as video and sound.
  2. I do not think we have a critical mass of other media yet to engage in such a project. The file types are also too exotic for many users.
  3. I foresee a lot of complications in the guidelines if they are to cover other media types as well. -- Slaunger 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When we decided to make POTD FP/QI-only (now FP only), I had an idea to make a "rare free image of the day" (or maybe week), to highlight subjects and topics that were hard to find free content for, for example maybe celebrities and especially historical events. But unsurprisingly I never had enough spare time to work on it, only think about it. :)

I suggest to make a separate user subpage instead of just your sandbox (eg User:Slaunger/Valuable Images), and summarise VI in a VP announcement pointing to this page, and have the main discussion on its talk page. If feedback is generally positive, in a couple of weeks you could launch it.

That is a good idea. I have created the new page and moved all discussions to a dedicated page. The proposal is still not ready for VP though. -- Slaunger 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You will probably find it helpful if there is at least one other person who has a lot of enthusiasm to get this started. But don't bother waiting for widespread approval to start a new idea, just start it and invite people to participate.

OK, any volunteers? My own time available for this will have breaks lasting days being busy with Real Life. -- Slaunger 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

cheers, I will follow the discussion with interest --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

On what valuable is and thoughts about allowance of different aspects of a subject to become VI[edit]

This section has been moved here from elsewhere to keep the discussion at one place.

Excellent idea, I think this would be much more useful than QI or FP. Those simply sort the images by aesthetic or technical qualities, this actually rates it by usefulness to Wikimedia projects. One problem I see is how to determine which is most valuable. This debate has been argued before on the English Wikipedia. Such as here. Is a face shot or a shot of the whole body more valuable? Is Common Frog in Norway, 2007.jpg more valuable because it's a better illustration of the male frog? Or is Rana temporaria.jpg more valuable? There's no objective way of telling which one is more valuable, it all depends on what the user is looking for. From what I understood we'd only choose one for each subject, until someone uploads something better. I think we should use good judgment, and that in the above example, both should be considered valuable images. It should only be the most valuable image of a specific aspect of the subject. So if we have a good image of a male frog, a female frog and them having sex, all three should be considered valuable images. I think this will prevent a lot of headaches later on, though it will rely on require good judgment from the people voting. Cheers. Calibas 05:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are making a good point there. There can be several different images of the same subject, which is valuable depeding of which aspect of the subject is shown. As you suggest it is a matter of good judgement. Concerning the face vs. body shots of animals I think it is the same. It is to be determined on a case by case basis depending on the subject. I suggest that when/if we start out this procedure we shall user a longer review period than the normal two days used at QI just to fine tune what is meant by valuable and do the necessary adjustments to the guidelines. I will try to adjust the current proposal accordingly and also add some exmaple images showing this. -- Slaunger 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea regarding usage of example images and thoughts about automated bot ranking[edit]

This section has been moved here from elsewhere to keep the discussion at one place. -- Slaunger 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger, this is a great idea. I for one would support this project. I like the way it ties in to FP and QI indirectly, but not dependent on them. I'd even consider actual article usage as a necessary criteria, even to the extent where an image can have different grades depending on actual usage. For example, an image being used in at least five wiki project article could be a VI bronze or something. An image being used in 10 wiki articles gets VI silver and 20 or more is VI gold (the number of articles can be different of course, I'm using these as an example). The articles in question can be from any wikipedia language and project, but images appearing on user pages or used in a banner or user box image shouldn't be counted. In the layout, there could be another column where links to the articles can be posted and verified. These links also help serve wikipedians searching for images to use. They may find some of the articles useful when working on their own article and be able to link them up later. You could even have a top ten list, where the top ten images being used are ranked and listed. Anyway, just some thoughts on this. Cheers! --Jnpet 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it. You make a good point about the usage and I have added some remarks on that in the proposal. Concerning further ranking of the VIs I find this is an interesting idea, but i suggest we start out without the ranking just to keep things simple. Also, I am concerned about check usage counts as they may be bad indicators of value. For instance I just checked the taxo image used for w:Common Frog. It is this one, which in my opinion is not the most valuable image of an individual of the species. However it has been copied in taxoboxes to several other Wikis, thus it has a large usage although it may not be the best photo. -- Slaunger 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to add, I did a usage check on the four images used as examples above. The one used most and therefor considered the most valuable was the image of Juan Carlos of Spain. That image is used on 15 articles in a variety of languages. The second most used was the image of the Manhatten bridge used six times in various languages. The lighthouse is used in three articles and the frog in two. --Jnpet 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I have added this usage count as a separate column in the examples table of the proposal. -- Slaunger 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well that would simplify the project, just get a bot to rank images by usage, no need for human intervention ;-P. Although usage is obviously a measure of value in one sense, it doesn't help for newly uploaded images (and of course you need to check that the nominator hasn't just inserted it onto a dozen pages to get ranking). Featured pictures and POTD would automatically get a bonus ranking as the are displayed on many different languages FP etc pages. --Tony Wills 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
And on top of that such a bot would not check that the other criteria are met such as the image page requirements. I think human interference and good jugdement is needed at the entry level for VI. -- Slaunger 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point about new images. Perhaps an initial VI stage, where an image can be promoted on a basic level, but get's upgraded as usage increases. No one would expect usage to be high of a picture which was only recently uploaded. But on the other hand, perhaps an image needs to be around for some time before it shows its value. An image being used on at least one article and having been there for some time could be promoted to VI. As for FPs, I wouldn't count those as being in a proper article. In the above usage check, the light house image was found on many more links related to FP and POTD, but I didn't count those and the 3 I counted were in proper articles. Where as the Juan Carlos image did not have many FP links at all and the 15 proper articles shows how much more valuable it is compared to the light house image. I don't know, perhaps it makes it too complicated. --Jnpet 07:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added some remarks about this in the proposal. As I have already stated a high usage count may also simply reflect that nobody has noticed that there is better material around. -- Slaunger 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points made on usage count and rankings. I guess the ranking and grading can be shelved for now. On usage count, I'm wondering in that case, if instead of a number, the actual links to articles would be more helpful and informative. For example, the light house image are used in four (seems a fourth article has been added over night) proper articles as follows: en:Racine, Wisconsin, en:Wind Point Lighthouse, zh:灯塔, and tr:Michigan Gölü. If we place those links in the column where it says usage, anyone searching for an image or for that matter looking for an idea for an article, could simply open the articles where in those images are found. In addition, links would allow interested people browsing the images to learn more about the image in question. We can add a request on the image data base requesting people to add a link to articles they have created containing the image. I guess if count and rank is not going to be a criteria, the link list does not need to be complete, so is not critical to keep updated, but I have a feeling, it would be if the interest is there.

I agree it would be nice to have just a list of links, but it is resourceful to maintain, is bound to be constantly out of date and maintaining it is - well - boring. I think the resources are better spend on instructing users on how to use the Check usage facility, which gives an easy-to-use list of links to other Wikimedia projects. It may be two clicks further away (you need to click in on the image page and click the check usage tab), but I think this outweighs the resources used to maintain such a link system manually.-- Slaunger 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As for limiting VI to the best image, per your frog example, I guess this is where opinion comes in. Although we may agree that one particular image of a frog is far superior than another, someone using an image for their article may find another image better. And then there are some articles which may use multiple images, (this seems to be the case for featured articles on wikipedia for example). So, I am not completely convinced that it should be limited to only one VI per subject. But I guess you have addressed that in a way with same subject different circumstances point you made in the guideline intro. I also think though that if an image is generally equal to an existing VI, it could still be promoted on that basis, allowing the article writer to choose which they would prefer for their particular article. As a safeguard that VI is not overwhelmed by images of a common subject, I would think the minimum actual usage amount should perhaps be considered. Any thoughts? Cheers! --Jnpet 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The usage count is a piece to the puzzle of evaluating whether it is VI or not, but in the end it all boils down to having adequate guidelines coupled with good judgement. At least that is what I propose to start out with. It can be adjusted as we go along. Concerning being overwhelmed by a lot of nominations in the beginning we could put a limit on, say, five nominations per user per day, at least initially. -- Slaunger 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We can adjust later. And I wouldn't put a limit initially. This may never become a problem after all. Probably best to see and adjust as we go along. --Jnpet 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratches in your sandbox[edit]

This section has been moved here from elsewhere to keep the discussion at one place. -- Slaunger 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a change to something in your sandbox. You might want to reword, restate or remove it all together. -- carol 01:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you carol. I agree completely with your clarification. Do make further scratches to the sandbox if you feel like it. -- Slaunger 08:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Unique image of species[edit]

I found this: Not all species photos are valuable. Some species may be so similar to other species in the Genus and may have such little interest in Wikimedia projects that they cannot become VI even if it is the only contribution of that particular species. to be a very weird statement. Every single species, however exotic, is of great interest to Wikimedia projects in general and to Wikispecies in particular. E.g. if the image of rare algae is well made and passes the nice-on-screen test, it should become a VI, IMO.
I'm talking about different species, let that be clear, not several images of the same species. But even subspecies, formae or varieties can and should be relevant. Lycaon 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had this picture in my my head of 1000 different species of visually similar algea or lichen being nominated to VI and that this would not be considered as valuable as, e.g., lions, swans or other animals which people notice more and thus in general find more valuable (although they really aren't, i agree with you on that point). But maybe you are right, that this is a weird phrase, which should be removed or at least rephrased. I am quite open about that. I would just like to hear one or two more opinions about that. -- Slaunger 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
If I'm reading this correctly it means that if there were two species that looked nearly identical we'd only make one of their pictures a VI? How would we rate which animals are valuable when all are a valuable part of the ecosystem? If scientists have decided these animals are different enough to deserve dividing them into different species I believe we should allow each to be a VI and pay no heed to how many similar pictures there are. Calibas 05:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all I do think that all species are equally important, but different species may not appear visually distinct on a photo. For instance, for many plants, the determination of the exact (sub-)species is very difficult and requires more information than is just seen on a photo. It may depend on non-visual characteristics of the root (which you do not want to harm when taking a photograph). Even ten macro shots detailing petals, leaves, and so on may not be enough to make a unique determination. Take this dandelion for instance from Greenland. There are more than 25 different species of dandelion in Greenland. Determining the exact species is for real specialists only, and I think you could have 10 photos of different species of dandelion from Greenland, which would all look the same. Would they all be valuable? I think not. More valuable would be the type of species illustrations you see in flora books for identification, as these are made such that they are visually distinct emphasizing the differences among species. That is what I mean by requiring that VIs are visually clearly distinct. And it is not only for plants. Take ladybirds for instance. There are more than 5000 identified species of ladybirds and it is again often impossible to uniquely identify the species from a single photo. My concern is that users could be driven into insisting that an Image is of a specific species just to get the VI stamp even though a positive ID by a professional has not been done. I think we should avoid tempting users in this way. -- Slaunger 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll add that if this could bring in a 1000 different unique species images, visually similar or not, it would actually be a good thing. To be honest, this is probably unlikely to happen and we'd probably only actually see a handful of these, and if there is only one image of a species, (or any other subject, for that matter), I think it should be considered valuable based on it uniqueness alone, although I concede you make a very valid point regarding the ladybirds. I'm actually more concerned of the other end of this issue where we have multiple images of the same common subject. Lions and swans or to take a perfectly good example already in discussion, frogs. This is where I can visualize future disagreements will take place. Leave it purely to individual opinion or preference and there will always be disagreements, and then it'll be just another QI or FP discussion. But proving encyclopedic value in the form of article usage, I think may be the key to decide if an image is valuable or not, removing personal preferences. The next item of concern in regards to common subjects is duplication, where we may have several images of the same subject (species, buildings, people, etc). In this case, I don't think duplication is necessarily bad, it allows article writers to choose which image they prefer to use and as previously mentioned, some articles may contain several images. Again, I think a measure could be based on a couple of factors. If a new image is downloaded and is an obvious improvement of an existing VI, this could be one factor, the second factor should be the subject in different circumstances or actions, (mating frogs is a perfect example of how additional images of the same subject can be valuable). Finally, I would also consider usage. Now I realize that there is the problem that nominators may add images to articles in order to inflate the count, even replacing images in use. I guess this is the weak point of using usage count as a determination factor and further thought would be required as to how to address this factor. Cheers! --Jnpet 06:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you state here Jnpet although I do not think visually similar photos of different species are of much relevance. When I came to think about it is more an ensemble of Images (a gallery) for the a given subject which may give the most value for some species illustrations. I will provide an example here based on some of my own photos. It is not that i want to promote my own work as VI (I don't know if it is), but I hope it can illustrate the point. Let us consider some photos of Saxifraga cernua (Nodding Saxifrage):

For use in a taxo box and on Wikispecies the last photo is somewhat valuable IMO but seen as a whole I think the gallery has an increased value for illustrating various aspects of the species. So maybe a Valuable Gallery (VG) could also be of relevance? -- Slaunger 14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although of the same species, since each image depicts a different aspect of the same subject, I think these could all potentially be valuable. As for the gallery, (by the way, the English term for "yngleknop" is a "bud"), I guess we would be getting into how the VI images would be stored and displayed once promoted. I think this is where the idea behind a valuable image becomes useful. Unlike FP and QI galleries, where category is minimal, I think a deeper categorization should be used for VI. I guess that would be the next step. --Jnpet 08:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a deeper categorization could be handy. However, it would also require that the user, which cleans up the nominations needs to be more knowledgeable about where it should go. Often the user, who does the categorization is a generalist (often an administrator) who deals with a series of images covering diverse subjects. I think it would be nicer if the species category or gallery automatically could indicate which of the images in the category or gallery were VIs (and QI/FP for that matter). I do not know if this is technically feasible? The lightweight solution which would work right away is to create a VI subcat "Valuable Images of X" to a species cat "X" or make a VI section in species gallery for "X". The latter procedure reqquires less domain knowledge of the subject and could be done by a generalist since the image would already be properly categorized or in the correct species gallery for it to become VI. -- Slaunger 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
By the by the way ;-) the correct English word for yngleknop is bulbil (see here). Lycaon 08:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the English term and the link - very usefull, I've bookmarked it. -- Slaunger 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have rephrased the formulation into something which I think is an improvement. The previous clause was clearly inadequate. What do you think about the rephrased clause? -- Slaunger 14:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Lycaon's original comment at the top of this thread: I agree. If we are lucky enough to get 1000 images of 100 lichen species we should have no hesitation in making them all VI's, assuming of course that the images do actually show some useful/educational features of each species. 'Valuable' means valuable to the project, and to lichenologists such a collection, properly classified, could be of great value. Admittedly, a non-specialist might view them as 1000 pretty similar images of nondescript green stuff, but he or she is not the target audience for determining value. Specialist images can be extremely valuable and should be accepted as such. Maybe point 2 could just be removed? --MichaelMaggs 12:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll and comments[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support; this proposal complements Featured Pictures and Quality Images and would recognize a class of images that is crucial to the purpose of Commons. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea. Calibas 05:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although I appreciate your support, I think we should avoid making a poll now and perhaps even later. Rather aim for a consensus-oriented introduction, where some time is given for the idea to mature. -- Slaunger 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Too early for that. --MichaelMaggs 11:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if your happy you've got a working format then just be bold and kick it off, my experience with QI was that it'll need about 3-4 months of intensive nursing nominating,promoting etc either it'll gain momentum you'll notice that stuff just starts happening and you dont need to be as involved, eventually it just is and and things happen. Just dont stress yourself out by "owning" it, like a child its going to grow and develop its own self. Gnangarra 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for the encouraging remarks! I would like to be bold and kick it off if I felt I could. There are just so many practical things that needs to be done yet, such as setting up a VIC page, creating a logo, a lot quite complicated wiki stuff with templates. I am hoping for volunteers to help me set that up. The issue I have raised below about one subpage per VIC is also an important thing to settle now as it will be a real mess and pain to change later. -- Slaunger 12:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Retaining EXIF data[edit]

I would like to see a requirement that where the image was taken with a digital camera, the EXIF information should be retained and included. The EXIF data adds a huge amount to the informative and educational value of a photographic image, and we ought in my view to be strongly discouraging users from saving digitally-edited images in a form in which that data has been stripped out. The EXIF data will normally be there automatically, and I'd find it hard to consider 'most valuable' a digital photo in which all that data has been deliberately removed making it impossible to check the date, camera model, exposure settings, use of editing programs etc. EXIF data is encouraged but not required for FP candidates, but they are not required to be 'valuable' images. --MichaelMaggs 11:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I had not thought of this. I agree with you that it adds value to the photo to have the EXIF data, and I also agree with you that the deliberate removal of EXIF data should be discouraged. On the other hand the EXIF primarily contains technical data which are not that relevant for the usefulness/value of the image in other Wikimedia projects. I would say that requiring EXIF data would be more relevant for QI, where the emphasis is on the technical side. I guess many of the users I am trying to attract with this proposal do not even know what EXIF is and is scared of such technie stuff. I would like the VIs to attract non-techies, whose primary concern is the value of the image. These include contributors who may use simple editors for cropping etc., which do not retain the EXIF after editing. I do not think they should be discouraged from contributing at VI because of an EXIF requirement. One of my goal with this is that users with a decent camera in a mobile phone should be able to contribute. A large fraction of these users are happily unaware about aperture, shutter time, ISO, and so on, which is normally revealed in the EXIF. -- Slaunger 12:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think EXIF data might be mentioned as a secondary criterion, e.g., an otherwise marginal image with EXIF data would be promoted. Many users who inadvertently remove EXIF data would not understand how to avoid that problem and they should not be discouraged.
When I began contributing in late 2005, we encouraged users to upload the original version before uploading a cropped or edited version of that file. It seems that we no longer do this, perhaps because few heeded that suggestion (see Commons:First steps/Quality and description). When done, it is not a panacea, since you have to download the original version to examine the EXIF data (see Image:Glacier Peak 7137b.jpg).
When I began contributing, I used a shareware program that mangled EXIF data. With encouragement, I might have switched to Photoshop earlier. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Exif data could be used as an additional criterion, where there are two images of roughly equal quality, the one with Exif should be used. While the technical specs are more useful for quality consideration, the datetime stamp can add value for historical events. --Ianare 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Slaunger. I don't think we should make EXIF data one of the criterion because encouraging photos that have it also inadvertently discourages photos that lack it (which is more of a QI issue). Of course, Commons in general should always encourage leaving the camera info. in all photos, and it will be something knowledgeable reviewers will take note of anyway. I'm all for preserving any information but I don't think knowing the camera settings and technical details makes a image any more valuable on other Wikimedia projects where the subject of the image is more important that the image itself. Rocket000 06:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Errors in deciding what is 'most valuable'.[edit]

It may often be very difficult to decide whether an image is the 'most valuable'. At the very least, somebody will have to trawl though all likely Commons categories and galleries to see if there's something better. However, many galleries are in such a mess that the better image may be very easy to miss. Take for example a VI candidate showing a plant that has been well-categorized at the species level. It's accepted as a VI on the basis that there are no better images in that category, but a week later a specialist (Lycaon comes to mind, for some reason) points out that there are literally dozens of better images already, all of which have been classified at a higher taxonomic level because the other photographers couldn't identify the species. What do we do? Should there be a procedure for de-listing VIs that were manifestly promoted in error? I think so. --MichaelMaggs 11:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a very valid point. Initially I have been concerned about the possibility of delisting a VI for two reasons:
  1. Resources are spend on delisting which could be used more constructively. Introducing a new concept such as VI will be resourceful and I am concerned about the load we put on the active users. I want the process to be as lightweight as QI since I foresee that the quantity of VIs can potentially be quite large. Thus we need an efficient, low cost procedures for handling VI.
  2. Many users take it very personally when their FPs are delisted today. The delisting procedure spreads a lot of negative energy and demotivates some users.
So as the proposal is today I have chosen to write once a VI always a VI (as with QIs). However I do see your concern and that this could become problematic, especially for the repository users, trying to find the most valuable content within a given topic. they may find severeal VIs but only the lates one is the most valuable and it requires some digging to figure that out. Therefore I am now changing my mind regarding this, but I suggest to do it in a different manner that what is done today at FP. I suggest the following VI delisting procedure, which I think takes the scenario you mention into account:
  1. For the first contribution of its kind an Image is nominated much as we now it from QI today. If it passes the review it gets promoted as VI.
  2. Later a better candidate is found. This is nominated for VI with an additional remark that it replaces the previous VI. During the review both the new VI candidate and the old VI are shown side by side in the 480x360 review size such that the reviewers can decide which one is the most valuable. If the new VI candidate gets promoted the old VI is automatically delisted. This also seems like more fair game as compared to the FP delisting procedure, where the delisting candidates are found by chance in a somewhat random process by users passing by. If a nominator has overlooked that a VI candidate replaces an existing VI (it can be disputed whether it is a replacement of illustrates another aspect of the same subject, how to solve this?) the reviewers can add the competing, existing VI in the review. What do you think of such a delisting mechanism? -- Slaunger 12:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have more opinions on this. Although it would be theoretically nice to keep the lists up to date by demoting pictures that are no longer the best, I very much doubt that that can be done without having a difficult, divisive and very time-consuming delist procedure. So to that extent I go along with your initial idea of "once a VI always a VI". A procedure that asks proposers to find other VI's in the same field first and put them up for discussion as well seems too complex as there won't be any way of searching for existing VIs on the basis of reason for earlier promotion. A more lightweight procedure might be to allow delisting only on the ground of manifest error in the original promotion, eg because at the time the image was not in fact the best. A proposer for delisting on that basis would have to point to the existence of a clearly better image having an upload date prior to the promotion date of the image to be delisted. --MichaelMaggs 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree more input from other users would be nice. Another approach could also be to simply start out without having a defined delisting procedure and only invent one if a need arise. When and if such a need arise we may also a much clearer impression of what is really needed. Perhaps I should rephrase the "Once a VI always a VI" clause into. "Currently, there is not a defined procedure for delisting a VI. Thus, a VI cannot be demoted. Later, if old VIs superseded by better ones becomes a problem a yet-to-be-defined delisting procedure will be defined and introduced." -- Slaunger 13:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should decide in advance, as it's pretty essential to the idea as a whole to know whether these images are supposed to be the best (as of now) or the best (for all time). As I say, I doubt the latter would be easy to manage. --MichaelMaggs 14:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that not demoting VIs is the better approach. It avoids potential rancor, rewards users who correctly identify their subjects at upload time, and does not tie up resources that could be engaged more constructively. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Having no way of correcting the type of error I set out above would not be good. --MichaelMaggs 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you are referring to the possibility of promotion of an image when it was not in fact the best, and the best image was not found. It seems to me that the proposal, as currently written, encourages uploaders to place their images in categories and gallery pages pursuant to Commons guidelines or risk having to share VI credit with a lesser images that was indexed properly. To my way of thinking, this is good, and not a matter in need of correction. The major aims of VIs is not hurt by having more than one VI. The proposal explicitly states, "Once a VI, always a VI, even if later superseded by a better VI." The case of a better VI, even one that was extant at the time of the initial VI, is covered by this provision, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we will have to disagree about this. The scenario I set out above will in my view happen pretty frequently, and unless it can be addressed quickly, without fuss, it's likely there will be big arguments over an individual image within a month. That needs to be avoided as at that point there will be personal reputations at stake. Other views would be helpful here.--MichaelMaggs 08:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I do understand your concern, Michael, that obvious misjudgements are likely to occur often. If we are to have a delisting procedure, I think it is hard to come up with a procedure which will not spend quite some resources and also frequently trigger claims that other users are being personal. If we are to have a delisting procedure, I suggest to do it a little differently than on COM:FPC. If a user finds there is a need for delisting a current VI because there is now a clearly better one around, both could be nominated for a "Most valuable review". That is both images are compared side-by-side and the one with the most support keeps the VI stamp, whereas the other is demoted. This is a more gentle and structured way of delisting than at FPC, because unlike at FP. A user cannot be accused of being personal when asking the other users to evaluate which of two images is the most valuable. And as a matter of fact, I cant see why this can't be done already during the nomination of a VI. Other VIs covering the same aspect of a subject ought to be categorized similarly and thus easy to find and compare to. And if a better candidate is really overlooked it can then be done in a "Most valuable review" afterwards. -- Slaunger 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds a very sensible approach. --MichaelMaggs 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Thoughts about some practicalities regarding the nomination and review procedures[edit]

As I've written in the proposal VIs are complementary to QIs in its emphasis on value and less emphasis on the technical qualities, especially the resolution. Thus, I have also proposed that the nomination and review process should be light-weight similarly to COM:QIC. I would like to present some thoughts about the QIC process, and there are certain things I would propose to do differently if technically feasible. Most of these things relate to minimizing the time users need to spend on practicalities, and maximize the time used for doing the actual reviews.

Consensual review[edit]

Today at COM:QIC there is a somewhat elaborate procedure for turning a promote or decline vote from a single user into a discussed/disputed review resolved in consensual review (CR). The steps are

  1. Change the template to \discuss
  2. Remove the nomination from the QIC gallery
  3. Paste the nomination into the consensual review section
  4. Organize the comments and votes already there by itemizing and adding adequate Symbol support vote.svg Support, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and/or Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question templates.
  5. Add a suitable subsection heading.
  6. Reorganize the formatting of the nomination such that the image is enlarged.

I have the feeling that sometimes other users are reluctant to dispute a candidate simply because of all the work involved in moving it to CR. To solve that I propose that for Valuable Image Candidates (VICs) the procedure is simplified in the following manner

  • Even the first vote is itemized and either the {{support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support) or {{oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose) template is used. (This is strictly speaking not a simplification, but not great work either)
  • The state of the nomination is changed to promote (green image border) or decline (red image border) (unless this can be automated in a fancy template?) as done today at QIC.

To "move" a VIC to consensual review do this

  1. Place a contrary vote on the nomination
  2. Change the state to discuss/disputed (Unless this can be automated?) This changes the image border into yellow as we know it from QIC

Since the review size should be 480x360 pixels (or equivalent no of pixels for other aspect ratios), there is no need to go through the exercise of resizing the Image. Also, I do not think there is any reason to move it to a dedicated CR section. The yellow image border is clearly visible when browsing the candidates. I think this is sufficient and would make the barrier for discussing a VIC smaller, and more time can be used on doing the interesting part of it - the nominations and the reviews. -- Slaunger 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One template to do it all[edit]

I think the nomination of VICs can be streamlined as compared to QIC by containing all relevant information in a single Valuable Image Candidate (VIC) template {{VIC}}. The syntax for using the template could be something like this

  |Image =foo.jpg
  |width = 360 (default value 480 if not specified)
  |height = 480 (default value 360 if not specified)
  |State = Promote(light green)|Decline(light red)|Discuss(yellow)|Promoted(Green)|Declined(Red) Promoted and Declined are new states as compared to QIC, they indicate that the voting has ended resulting either in a promotion to VI or a decline.
  |Reason =foo is valuable because of this and that
  |usedin = [[en:foo]], [[en:foobar]], [[da:fø]], [[wikispecies:Foo Bar]](optional arg)
  |reviews = 
* {{Support}}, {{Oppose}}, {{Neutral}}, {{Comment}}, {{Question}} template followed by review comment here
* Next template and review comment here (optional)
  |result = vote count so far if in discussed state (optional, could this be automated?)

I do not know much about templates though and the possibilities. Any comments from template experts? -- Slaunger 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One subpage per nomination[edit]

Since the suggested review size is 480x360 pixels (or equivalent no of pixels for other aspect ratios) having one single page for all VICs is perhaps too much. A lot of bandwidth will be sued to just load that page. Instead I suggest each VIC has a dedicated subpage as in COM:FPC with a somewhat similar procedure for nominating, e.g., enter the name of the image press a button and a new subpage is automatically generated. The template shown above could be available for copying into the new subpage and it is just a matter of adding the extra fields and then save the page. The Subpage shall now be linked in an intelligent manner to the VIC page. Not by including it as in FPC but by having a tiled thumbnail gallery of the VICs. Each thumbnail should have a coloured image border corresponding to its current review state. Upon clicking one of the VIC thumbnails the reviewer is redirected to the subpage of the VIC, where it is seen in review size and the reason, used in links, review comments and current vote result is displayed.

I do not know if this is technically feasible, but I think it could be very neat. -- Slaunger 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Overall I like this proposal, however I have a question about granularity (?--I can't think of a better way to describe it): How specific would VI be when stating that an image is the best illustration of X? Presumably we could have a photo tagged as the best illustration of a skyscraper, but could be also have one tagged as the best image of a skyscraper in Chicago, and another one as the best image of the Sears Tower. What happens if one image satisfies all three of the above? Would it get three VI awards? Thanks, —JeremyA 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. First of all, a single Image cannot have be awarded VI three times IMO. Either it is VI or it is not. Concerning the granularity you mention, this is where human judgement sets in whether it is considered valuable. For your example I think that there certainly can be a VI for the most valuable image of a skyscraper, if it is good at illustrating general characteristics of the concept of a skyscraper. I also think there can be a VI for the Sears tower, which may be a different image, illustrating best this well-known (even in Denmark) building. When it comes to the most valuable image of "a" skyscraper in Chicago I would say - it depends. Is the particular skyscraper special in way (historically, its design, construction, the usage, etc.)? Has other Wikimedia users bothered to mention the skyscraper explicitly in some Wikipedia article? Does it have its own article? There is no set result whoch can be bend into a rule. It is subjective, and depends on the reviewers personal preferences. It is not an exact science and we also have consensual review to resolve disputes. -- Slaunger 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


We really need a Valuable Image Logo.svg for this project, to give the project an identity and for tagging images. Who is skilled at doing this? -- Slaunger 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

LadyofHats, that's who. But of course I can't volunteer her. Maybe I can give it a try. What did you have in mind? Rocket000 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as a matter of fact, that's a good idea to contact LadyofHats. The few thoughts I have had about it is that the logo should display something valuable. The first thing that came to my mind was gold or something golden. The next thing that came to my mind was a golden 3D look of some currency like € or $, but since evidently these currencies are not very international I thought of the Wikimedia Commomns Logo. If that could be given a 3D perspective with golden colours or at least some depth that could be one idea. I do not think using a star as is done for FP is a good idea, as this is used in different colours to indicate FP on Commons and en. -- Slaunger 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have asked User:LadyofHats here and I am hoping for a positive response. Unfortunately, the user does not currently seem to be very active, but let's see what happens. -- Slaunger 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think she might be up to it, given her past logo/award work. And yes, we should stay away from using the FP star or QI seal. I was also thinking about using something valuable but currency signs are not universal enough. What about a stack of gold bars. Like these VIs are the gold in our vault of images. The gold bars can be stamped with a [VI] or something. You know what I mean? Or maybe jewels? A gold coin or medal? Rocket000 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The gold bar with a VI stamp is a good one IMO. -- Slaunger 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a bronze bar with a VI stamp is also an option. This would open up to the a possible extension later: It has been suggested above that the VIs could be separated in bronze, silver and gold levels as evidenced by their Wikimedia usage counts (in content articles). Once this is going a bot could regularly troll through the VI to check their usage and promote them to silver og gold VIs depending on their usage. This could add further spice to the VI concept. -- Slaunger 21:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea. Rocket000 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure as I can see this being a trigger for edit wars on various projects over which image should be used. Additionally not every VI is going to be usable on many pages, additionally fi it can be used acorss many articles is really that rare to be considered valuable. Gnangarra 07:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indents reset). In theory the edit wars could occur but I doubt it really. If you were to do image replacements on numerous wikipedias, the regulars opon the other wikipedias/projects would spot pretty fast what is going on. I do think usage is one of the measurands of value, especially if it has been introduced by other Wikimedia contributors based on their individual jugdements. A single image can and will be used in many different projects. Plant and animal species images are obvious examples as are more generic/all-round topics such as, e.g., water, the natural sciences, maps, cultural and historical events, sports, poverty, you name it. Other images are perhaps only valuable to a limited set of users, i.e., they may have a regional character such as the old heritage shed you added as a VI example. But they are still valuable. -- Slaunger 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think edit wars are any more likely to occur over this than FPs or QIs. Of course people disagree about whether an image is one of those, but I've never seen edit wars over it. I can't see people using the image's VI status as the reason itself why it should replace another image. Besides, just like with FPs, other projects can do what they want. They could make their own VI system or totally ignore it. Rocket000 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, this doesn't have much to do with the VI logo, does it? Rocket000 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it does relate to whether we should start out with a bronze logo or go directly for gold. -- Slaunger 09:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I can see it potentially causing a little edit warring. If we go by mere usage counts it can cause some editors to "spam" some images they want to see receive the gold logo. We could do it a different way though, and award images a gold, silver, or bronze logos based solely on the value, which wouldn't change, but then we would have to start with this system instead of installing it in the future. Rocket000 06:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the gold, silver, bronze idea. And although there could be some "edit spam", I don't think it will be such a big problem. As I had pointed out above, the actual usage should be based on uses in actual articles and such. Images appearing on user pages or on banners or user boxes, shouldn't be included. I guess the rule should be where in a picture adds value to an article (for wikipedia projects) and/or an entry (such as in wikispecies or wiktionary etc). The idea behind the different rating is the use over all wiki projects not just one. So although an image of a common frog may only be used once or twice in an article on Wikipedia English, if the same image is used on several languages and projects, the valuable usage should go up. Perhaps it would be easier to control by counting the number of projects the image is used rather than the number of articles. Taking some of the examples already posted, The image of the common frog is found on commons, wikipedia; Italian, Norwegian, and Hungarian. Four different projects. (By the way, it seems to have increased since the two entries I initially counted). The image of Juan Carlos is found on Wikimedia commons, Wikipedia; English, German, Japanese, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Norwegian, Finnish, Serbian, Korean, Arabic, and Occitan, Wikimedia incubator, Wikiquote Spanish and Wikinews Portuguese. In some of these the image is on more than one article. 17 different projects is not bad at all. I'd think this could be considered gold. And if it's based on number of projects, rather than the number of articles, it may be easier for bots to keep track too as there is no need to worry about user pages and such. Plus this could reduce edit wars and spamming as such. Some food for thought. --Jnpet 05:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I like your idea about assing value by the number of different projects the image is used in. It will also make life much simpler for a value assesing bot, as the logic for differentiating content pages from user pages does not need to be implemented. There is the possibility, though, that an image is only used in a no-content context in a specific project, but I suggest we just ignore this nuisance. Regarding cuts for silver/gold, I would suggest putting in cuts at 10 projects for silver and 20 projects for gold. I am aware that this would not give the Juan Carlos image the gold stamp - yet, but the number of projects is increasing, and I think it would be fair to set the gold bar (ha-ha) high. Alternatively, usage in a certain percentage of the Wikimedia projects could be required. -- Slaunger 08:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... going by a percentage would scale better as Wikimedia grows. It make things easier to because we wouldn't have to adjust the number requirements. But, OTOH, articles will develop faster than the number of projects so maybe assigning number values would make more sense. A bot, of course, can run usage reports every so often but there may be a need for a little human action on the front end to make adjustments for things like if the image is used in templates which appear on hundreds of pages. I think we should only count uses in projects' mainspace (excluding transcluded templates that aren't specific to the given page). A couple of questions: Should we give an extra weight for images that are used in a greater number of types of projects (i.e. usage in Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, etc. vs. just one project but in many languages)? Once a image meets the silver or gold requirements can they go back to just bronze if the usage falls below the requirements? Rocket000 09:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think special weight should be given as to which type of project a VI is used in. For me this just adds complexity in the rules and maintenance without any clear benefit. Doing that would favour certain types of photos at the cost of other types. For instance, a VI of a plant or animal species would often be relevant for inclusion in WikiSpecies, etc. I do not see this as more valuable than having the image in another language-specigic Wikipedia.
Can a VI be demoted from gold to silver, and from silver to bronze? Well, if we go for percentage of projects it could, and if we choose to update cuts as the project grows, it could too. But then again, the negative energy emitted from a demoting from, e.g., silver to bronze perhaps calls for enforcing that a VI cannot be demoted to a lower level VI? -- Slaunger 09:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just realized why a project count may not work. Specifically in regards to FP. Once an image is promoted to FP, I've noticed that the image gets put into a number of picture of the day templates in different languages, as these are not proper articles, perhaps this could be a problem. I don't consider POTD templates as proper articles, plus it would in essence make every FP a VI. I guess this needs further thought.
As for the level, I think 20 for gold, 10 for silver is a good idea, in fact I would add 5 for bronze and a fourth basic level. As an initial stage, a VI gets promoted to basic VI, as usage goes up, it achieves the different "medals" as usage increases. Although percentages may be even better.
As for delisting/demoting, it's true that an image may start loosing count once a better image comes a long, but I think the once a VI always a VI should still apply. However, when a new VI comes along to replace the old one, perhaps a note can be added to the old one saying that an alternate VI image is available for use.
In line with the actual topic here, I'm starting to think of an image of a medal, I guess the Gold, Silver, Bronze rating would easily lend itself to an image of medals. Or alternatively as trophies. Perhaps the basic VI could be in the form of a medal case or a trophy case. Then the case get's filled as the medals get awarded. Perhaps this is a bit early, but we can then later incorporate specific project medals. For example, I uploaded an image of Mount Batur which became an image of the week for the Indonesia Portal on English Wikipedia. Completely unexpected, and for an image I didn't actually think to be so valuable. But it was obviously quite valuable for the folks on the Indonesia portal. It could be fun then to encourage them to design their own Indonesia Portal medal which they can award as an extra medal to put in the VI medal case in addition to the usage medals. On the other hand, there is already a nice banner on the image showing that it had been used as picture of the week for Portal Indonesia, so perhaps it's a bit redundant. Anyway, just a bit of brain storming here. --Jnpet 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On being "Valuable"[edit]

I'm too lazy to search the archives, but if I recall correctly a simmilar idea came up a few months ago either on QIC or FPC. The definition of Valuable was slightly different than here. The basic idea was that contributors from areas in to world with little or no image coverage should be encouraged and honored. Images of african daily life, pictures from china, off the tourist paths and maybe taken in legal grey zones of the local censorship. Images that are rare and hard to find under a free license. Your example images include simmilar cases, but I'd try to keep FPs off the VI Candidate page to avoid intimidation by technical quality and to make clear that the value lies somewhere else. --Dschwen 22:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right that the current examples are too technically brilliant to properly represent what a "standard" VI could be. I do not recall seing the previous proposal you mentioned. The examples you mention are exactly the types of contributions I would like to see get some recognizition in filling out the gaps of topics here. The reason why I used FPC examples was also for my own mental purposes of figuring out how VI related to QI and FP. I would warmly welcome if other users could expand the example gallery with more representative VIs. The one added by Lycaon about the very rare parasite is a good example of what is a VI, but not a QI/FP, but we also need other less extraordinary examples. -- Slaunger 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added another example, a building that has since collapsed presume this is what you mean by valuable, ie irreplaceable. It would equally apply to other buildings which have since been destroyed be it by flood, fire, or "progress". Gnangarra 12:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for adding another example. I am not so sure though that it is a VI. First of all I think the image page should be geocoded according to the guidelines to improve location description. Secondly, I think the categorization can be improved too. If a user is looking for heritage listed buildings for a Wikimedia project, he probably will not find it from the Category:Perth, Australia alone. At the minimum I guess Category:Heritage should be added as well, and perhaps you should consider creating Category:Heritage of Australia. Having to create new appropiate categories/galleries is something you often encounter when working with VIs, as they tend to be gap-fillers conntent-wise. Regarding "valuable, i.e. irreplaceable", this is not always so. Not all unique photos of old sheds, which has ceased to exist are valuable. This particular one is presumably valuable, given the heritage, although I am not knowledgable about it in this specific case. As a final comment, we may be at the borderline as to what is acceptable regarding the photo, that it shall illustrate the subject well in the review size since a significant fraction of the shed is cropped away. Therefore it is not that good for online illustrations in Wikimedia IMO. So, is it a VI? I think maybe, but I am not sure. -- Slaunger 23:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Maddington gnangarra.jpg is worth discussing, as it may give us a better idea of what should be considered valuable. I would argue that while this shed may be interesting enough locally to have received a heritage listing, that alone should not be enough as there are probably millions of sheds worldwide that are at least as historically significant. The image is irreplaceable by virtue of the fact that the shed has now gone, but again that surely shouldn't be enough on its own, any more than it would be 'valuable' to have a photo of a person who has since died. --MichaelMaggs 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for geocoding the image. That helped me understand where it was. BTW are you familiar with the heading parameter, which can be used to add the direction in which the camera was pointing? It result in a cool directional arrow on the Commons icon on Google Maps. See my user page for some examples. -- Slaunger 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added another example, Image:Mwamongu_water_source.jpg, a photograph from a village in Tanzania. This is an area that is off the tourist paths and without much image coverage. It illustrates an important activity of life in a village with no plumbing and the problem of access to safe drinking water. At 944x704 pixels, it is too small to qualify as a FA or QI, but the exposure and composition are good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that the photo itself can be considered valuable (it is by the way publicly available in the slightly better resolution 1064x768 pixels here, not that it matters that much as the image quality is not really that good). It could be better categorized though. The Category:Drinking water is very accurate and suitable, whereas Category:Tanzania is too general to my mind (Category:People of Tanzania) and suitable Tanzania regional category would be better IMO and it is not geocoded either. However, in this case this can perhaps be mitigated as the photo is taken from the public domain, and the image source does not give more information. Although the name of the village is mentioned I cannot find the location on Google Earth and a Google search does not give any good hints to the real location either. So, yes, I agree it is probably VI, although the image page in principle could have been more informative with its categories and with some geodata. -- Slaunger 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I uploaded the slightly better resolution version.
  • The categorization has been improved as you suggest.
  • The author via email tells me that the village is in the Meatu District of the Shinyanga Region. I added a geocoding tag with the coordinates of the center of the Meatu District, which is about 70 km across.
The author says (via email), "Like so many small villages, it isn't on any map that I can find ... we took a Land Rover a bit northwest, I think, perhaps 15 km, to reach Mwamanongu. The driver knew how to get to these villages, but there were no road signs anywhere, nor any landmarks on the flat land, and the 'road' was just a path..." This account illustrates the difficulty in obtaining precise coordinates, in less developed portions of the world, without a GPS.
Thank you for your thoughtful review. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. The image page is now significantly improved, which IMO increases the value of the contribution. Now it is clearly VI to my mind. Regarding geocoding we have such a low precision here on the exact location (in the middle of a 70 km district), that I am wondering if the geodata could be considered more misleading than guiding. The written description on the image page may in this case be a more valuable location information. As far as I know there is unfortunately not a way to indicate the accuracy of a geocoded location. Normally, I expect that a geocoded image has an accuracy of 1 km or better, but I do not think we have set guidelines concerning this? -- Slaunger 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether a place is in the Brazilian jungle, half way the Australian desert or close to an obscure African village, in this day and age there are no excuses for not having a geolocation which has an accuracy which is less than a kilometre. Having lived in rural Africa myself for years, I can easily pinpoint any village I visited in e.g. the eighties, by doing a little effort and using Google Earth. I you have to rely on hearsay of hearsay to (geo)locate a place than that obviously reduces the value of your image. It is of course much easier to find excuses not to have to do something than to do the actual research, but with all the possibilities that ar these days available, excuses are often just that: lack of effort. But being valuable is not only about geolocation, although it can form an important part of it. Lycaon 06:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that for contributions from Commons users, there is no excuse for missing geodata except lack of effort, unless some of the special circumstances mentioned in the proposal prevail, such as endagered species, personal infringement, studio shots, etc. I actually had a thought about zoo shots. Here I think geocoding is relevant too, but it would be nice if one could distinguish between wild-life images and zoo-shots when thinking in terms of having the possibility in the future to autogenerate distribution maps. Perhaps images categorized in a Zoo category structure can be filtered out? That of course requires that zoo images are properly categorized to the relevant zoo. Any other thoughts about that? -- Slaunger 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
One point about geocoding is that, some of my images have been the result of intrusions into restricted areas, I have no intention of saying where. There also are many endangered species of plants that such locations even in a general sense can place populations at risk. Presume that the same could be said for certain in the wild wildlife images as well. Gnangarra 14:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Relevant exceptions are already mentioned explicitly in the proposal. If you feel other exceptions are needed, do add them. However, if contributions are due to illegal intrusion I do not feel that should be encouraged. I am not sure if such contributions belong on Commons at all in that case, although I am not knowledgeable in these matters.-- Slaunger 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valuable vs Wikipedia Notability[edit]

The draft rules say that the (best) portrait of a "notable" person would be valuable. Would that extend to other subjects, eg buildings, plants, animals? Would the (best) photo of something which Wikipedia considers notable always qualify? If so, under the guidelines of which Wiki? Could we say that any image illustrating a subject having a page on the (English?) Wikipedia will automatically pass the test for being 'valuable'? --MichaelMaggs 21:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

w:WP:BIO and w:Wikipedia:Notability gives some good hints at what can be considered valuable, but I would rather like to avoid direct coupling to guidelines on other Wikipedias to what is meant by valuable at Commons.
First of all, there are other Wikimedia projects than the Wikipedias. For instance not every animal or plant species would be considered valuable on a Wikipedia, but on Wikispecies all species would be considered valuable independent of the interest from the typical Wikipedia user (with the visually distinct twist in the proposal).
Secondly, we should not couple our value term to a specific Wikipedia such as the English. Although the links above are quite good at defining notability in a context, which does not relate specifically to the Western-European/American cultural background which most users on the English wikipedia has, I think we should rather avoid a direct coupling to a specific Wikipedia. On other wikipedias there may be other equally valid views on notability and value, which differs from the prevailing opinions on the English Wikipedia, simply because it is based on another set of cultural values and regional boundary conditions. And no, I do not think that having a Wikipedia page about a subject necessarily is a go for an image of the subject being valuable. I have also noticed several examples of non-existent Wikipedia pages of animal or plant species due to the lack of available Commons media. Having a photo or an illustration of a species brings much more life to an article, so often the emergence of an image on Commons triggers that an article is created.
In conclusion, I think it can be relevant to refer to the subject being "notable"/valuable on other Wikimedia projects when nominating an image for VI, such that this can be taken into account during the review. However, it is not set in stone that such references is also equivalent to the image being valuable at Commons. -- Slaunger 11:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could QICbot be cloned into a VICbot?[edit]

This thread was originally posted here.

Hi Dschwen,

I have drafted a proposal for something I call Valuable Images. The proposal is being discussed here. Until now other users generally seems to like the idea. I have written down some thoughts about streamlining the nomination and review process as compared to COM:QIC. Evidently a bot quite similar to User:QICbot could come in handy, but I have only little knowledge about the possibilities and limitations of bots (and templates for that matter). I was wondering if you could spare a little time considering my thoughts and comment on them: Are they way too complicated to implement or is some of it doable? Perhaps you can envision other possibilities as well?

Thanks in advance, -- Slaunger 21:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The One template to rule them all approach looks good. The more machine readable, the easier the job for me will be. Votecounting wouldn't be hard to implement either. Hm.. ..what about this crazy idea: Use exactly the same system as QI! ;-) That would be the least amount of work for me :-) --Dschwen 22:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the crazy idea of doing everything exactly as in QIC, I think it is a no-go as I really would like the images to be presented in a preview size of 480x360 or equivalent, and having those in this size on the VIC page would waste too much download bandwidth I think. Make it too slow to load. Some users are already frustrated today that the QIC page takes too long to download and/or is impossible to show on some browsers, for instance on older systems using older version of IE. Could we move this thread to the VI discussion page btw, I like to keep the discussions centralized? -- Slaunger 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand that reasoning. And feel free to move this thread. --Dschwen 16:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VI delisting[edit]

I understand the reasons for "once a VI, always a VI", which is to conserve human resources for better uses, but if we do it right I don't think it'll be an issue. Unlike QIs and FPs were only community standards change, the value of an image changes when a better image comes along. When a small low-quality photo is the only one we have in all of Commons of an extremely rare species, then it has value, but as soon as a FP-quality photo of the species (showing the same aspect) comes along, any value the first had is considerably lowered. Allowing it to remain a VI takes away from the meaning of that status. Instead of having a separate delisting process, why not do it at the same time when a very similar image gets promoted? (By "very similar", I mean the new image would non-controversially take the place of nearly every use of the previous image. Superseded, in a way.) Rocket000 09:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point! Actually, I have already proposed this as a "Most Valuable Review" further up this page. I think what you have in mind is identical to what I suggest there? -- Slaunger 11:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I apologize for missing that (there's a lot of discussion here, ok :-) . And yes, that's just what I had in mind. I don't think users should be allowed to nominate just any VI they think isn't valuable. There must be an image to replace it. Hopefully, higher res and edited versions are simply uploaded over the previous image, but if not, this would be a valid reason to transfer the VI status to the new image. If the images are of the same subject and illustrate the same aspect, then this also can be a reason to delist, however, these should go directly to consensual review to be compared side-by-side next to the current VI. I also thought this comparison process could be useful when it can't be decided which of two (or more) similar images should be the VI. Rocket000 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative view: Invaluable Images[edit]

Probably no surprise here; I would like to review the proposal from the beginning. While there is already a great progress in the middle part, the technicalities of the problem where wikipedians are very strong, the head and the tail seem rather incomplete. When I look at the examples, I would only pick two or three, and probably not the ones that are proposed. I split the further discussion in several sections for clarity. --Foroa 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

New views are welcome, and I agree there may be much better examples of what is a VI and what is not. -- Slaunger 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The objectives[edit]

My understanding (or call it preference) is to pick, out of the thousands of images, the images that "talk", that convey "something". So we are arriving in the "artistic" domain which is, luckily, very subjective. This implies that you will almost never find a consensus, so no reason to even try. As a matter of exercise, I suggest to organise some voting (with for example a scale of 0 to 10) on the examples and I would be surprised to see it converge (unless the pictures are voted against the same criteria as the POTY pictures).

So I will try to formulate some criteria for selecting pictures:

  • The picture cannot be reproduced, even with the best photographer, equipment, studio and models in the world, it would be next to impossible to make a picture that conveys the same message, atmosphere, ... This implies that old images make a better chance to be accepted (at least the first ones in their class)
    This would make it quite hard to pass thorugh. I do not share that preference or understanding. An objective of VI is to encourage users to contribute with a wide variety of new subjects, thus filling the gaps. If we want to encourage irreproducicble images, we do not encourage such contributions. However, the kind of images you mention would also be VI in to my mind, for instance the unique historical photos.
  • When looking at the picture at three different days, it still catches my full attention, it speaks to me.
    To my mind a VI does not have to speak to each user. A VI will speak to the users interested in the particular subject, and since this type of interest varies greatly among users, this is too fluffy.
  • I would be prepared to pay more then 50 $ to have a properly framed print of the picture so that I can hang it in my home or office
    I think this is more what a featured picture is (or should be about). I would say you could have many VIs, which will be absolutely boring for most users, however if it fills a gap in the subjects covered and does this reasonably well, I think it should be encouraged. For instance, I would argue that this photo is a VI as it is the only photo, which shows how the stock of sled dogs are regulated in Greenland by shooting. However, it is probably not a photo most users would like to pay more than 50$ to make a properly framed print of.
    The underwater photos mentioned by Jnpet below is another good example where users do an effort to contribute with unusual subjects spending considerable effort in doing so. Since these users donate their contributions for free to the community I think there should be a driver for doing so in terms of recognition. -- Slaunger 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as an example, I find the image at the right of limited quality but fascinating: discussing, dominating males (artists), female for decoration (?), unique (french) bistro ambiance. I looked several times to the examples, and honestly, only the Tanzania water and Manhattan image and the pic picture keep capturing my attention. Although the picture of the king makes me curious.

  • Yes, which images cature your attention depends much on the observer. To my mind the purpose of VI should not necessarily be to capture the attention of any observer when it is not in the correct context. However, a VI presented in the context of a Wikimedia project using the image, be it in a wikipedia article, a wikispecies article or in wikinews or any of the other projects, the image should catch the interest of the observer, who has actively searched for the subject, thus showing an interest in the subject. -- Slaunger 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just the start of the discussion. --Foroa 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, what you have described here is Featured Pictures. The FP section is where you judge images based on the "WOW" factor, which for a lack of better words, is what you are describing above. The problem is that although there are some truly remarkable and amazing images on FP, some of them have little or no encyclopedic value. In the example you provided, I agree it has some artistic value, but I would have a hard time thinking of an encyclopedic article where it could be used. You mentioned that you only found a few pictures interesting in the examples, it's true a picture of a frog may be uninteresting and possibly boring, but that is taking it out of context. Imagine an article about frogs without a picture and that article becomes boring. Add the image of that frog to an article on frogs and the image will be worth more because the article on frogs with that picture becomes a thousand times more interesting because a picture says a thousand words.
I think with VI, the idea is to encourage downloading of the more unusual encyclopedic and informative images. It is exactly why there is a discussion above on what is a valuable image. Rare subject matters would and should be considered VI even if the image is of somewhat lower technical standard. Artistic qualities shouldn't be a consideration at all. Although Wow factors and artistic values could be a consideration only if it's a common subject (many images of the sames subject available). Again these are the issues being discussed above, on delist or not to delist images which have been replaced with another better image. For example, I have nominated a few images to FP where they were not selected because the subject was; ugly (frog fish are ugly), noisy background (natural underwater habitat), blending into background (natural camouflage), noisy picture (common technical problem for under water photography known as "back scatter" where the flash reflects particles floating in the water), and other minor technical issues (various under water photography problems). The point is, you may not pay $50 to frame and hang a picture of an ugly frogfish, but it would add substantially to an article on frog fish. A picture says a thousand words. Personally, I would think it would be pointless to repeat another FP, (or QI for that matter). I actually had some fantastic images from my last dive trip of sea horses, nudibranches, Spanish dancers, pyjama cardinal fish, cuttle fish, ghost pipe fish, baramundis, stingrays, snake eel, banded sea snake and the jewel; mating mandarin fish! (A few more too). But recently, after I downloaded an image of a weedy scorpionfish, I got strongly discouraged by commons. I have since only downloaded a second image of a weedy scorpionfish variety to use in an article I created on wikipedia English, but other than that, I have refrained from downloading any more as I started wondering why I was giving away these hard gotten images. And they are not cheap either. The equipment costs a small fortune. (I had one disaster where I lost an Olympus 8080 due to the water casing getting flooded). The trips costs a bit as well, so for every under water image I donate, it is probably costing me at least $50 out of my own pocket. Now I used to enjoy contributing to commons, what other reason would there be for me to donate these images right? But the fun has gone, so how can I justify contributing these images at such costs? I'd be the first to admit that few of my images would be FP standard, and due to the difficulties of shooting under water, they have a difficulty getting QI status as well. So how to get recognition for these rare subjects? That is where VI comes in. For those like me, who may have valuable subject images to contribute, but who are frustrated with FP and QI for different reasons can have valuable contributions recognized for encyclopedic value, not artistic value, which in my opinion is what wiki is ultimately all about. If VI becomes another version of FP and QI, then I'm afraid I would no longer be interested in contributing anything further to commons. --Jnpet 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that I made myself not completely clear: in my discussion, the technical or artistic characteristics don't necessarily play a role and have thus nothing to do with FP. What I failed to indicate is that the subjective judgement can only be be done in respect of a certain theme or subject, and to which only people participate that have a strong relation/interest to the subject. So for the mentioned diving pictures, only people that are interested in the subject and have some knowledge on it should participate. --Foroa 19:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The valuable name[edit]

A major problem is that, for the people uploading pictures, all pictures are valuable for an encyclopedia. A picture with very bad technical characteristics can be very valuable when it is used despite its low quality. Anyway, selecting a valuable image implicitly makes al the others little of hardly valuable which does not sound right.

I agree with you that the term "Valuable Image" is unfortunate in the sense that it sort of "devaluates" all other images. This is not the intention, and I welcome new suggestions. Regarding "valuable", it does not necessarily mean encyclopedic. Although the Wikipedias are the most well known and largest Wikimedia projects, we should have all Wikimedia projects in mind - also new ones, which may emerge over time.-- Slaunger 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names could be (feel free to complete, vote (set 3 tildes), ...)

Per your own policy, I do not think it is timely to vote now, but new proposals are welcome and open for discussion.
  • Invaluable Image (irreplaceable) Foroa
  • Image Strike Foroa
  • Striking Image
  • Talking Picture Foroa
  • Living picture
  • ...
I am sorry, but I do not get the "that's it" sensation from any of you suggested terms. I think the reason is due to a difference in our preferences or understanding of the objectives for this proposal as detailed above. I got another idea this morning, which I think at least is better in describing the objectives than "Valuable Image". My new proposal is
  • Unique Image
Let me digress for a moment to explain what I like about this term and what I also thinks is its disadvantage.
  • The work unique describes that we are looking for unique images showing a special aspect of a given subject.
  • By using the word unique instead of valuable, we avoid the implicit devaluation of all other images as "not valuable".
  • A disadvantage of the term "Unique Images" is that it sort of indicates that we are looking for anything which is unusual and not seen before no matter if it is valuable and of relevance for Wikimedia projects. For example, to my knowledge, the only contribution we have regarding Vivisection on Commons is this frog photo, so this is a unique photo. Should it then be promoted according to this proposal? I think no. The reason is that it does not shown the subject well. The image shows how not to do vivisection. A more valuable and educational image of vivisection, would be one showing how to do professional vivisection would qualify for promotion. This could be clarified by extending the term into something like Uniquely Valuable Image, but this is also more clumsy and complicated and I'd rather have a simpler term.
In conclusion, I think it is a difficult one to settle the best term for the proposal. I think I may be limited by my vocabulary in English in coming up with a better term. Any other suggestions? -- Slaunger 08:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Most Valuable Image is more what we are looking for. The most valuable one of the series gets the stamp, which means that the others (e.g. frog pics) are not without value but just a bit less valuable. It avoids the not valuable issue IMO. Lycaon 10:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a better term than Valuable Image in deemphasizing the implicit not valuable of all other images. One thing I am not too fond of though is that users unfamiliar with the term might ask themselves: Most valuable image of what? Most valuable image on Commons? Most valuable image of a plant? Most valuable image of a withering petal of Saxifraga nivalis ssp. nivalis? What we really mean is something like Most Valuable Image of its kind, but that is an overly long and intricate term, which just won't do either, I fear. I wish I could find that one word to put in front of it, which would just match. I took a look in my consice English dictionary for words resembling valuable and unique, and I have a few more suggestions:
  • Precious Image - the word precious indicates both most valuable value and unique to my mind, although my associations to "Lords of the Ring" and "Gollum" are hard to get rid of in this context ;-) It like it because it is decoupled from that valuable word - all Commons images should in principle be valuable. Not being precious is not that bad...
  • Significant Image
  • Important Image - subjective terms, important to who, but so is valuable?
  • Unmatched Image - not to fond of the negating un-, but it matches pretty well what the proposal is about
  • Unparalleled Image - not too fond of the negating un-, but it matches pretty well what the proposal is about. -- Slaunger 11:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Exceptional image - Good.
    Yes I agree it is pretty good, quite like precious. My only concerne is that when I think of the word exceptional I also think of something which is aesthetically beautiful and og very high technical quality - much like what we have in FP. That may be a misconception of mine - being non-native to the English language. -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Matchless image - Not very accurate since the proposal allows for more than one. Unmatched, unique, nonpareil and crème de la crème have the same difficulty, but the last two would confer a more international sensibility.
    Also pretty good and perhaps slightly better than unmatched, the -less ending is also a negation, but the word is not as "contrary to" as "unmatched" IMO. I think it is precise enough if we decide to include a most valuable review for delisting as then we will only have one of each aspect of the subject, which is sort of matchless. -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First-rate image - I think this one strikes the right note. It allows for the possibility of more than one.
    I am hesitant to agree on that. For me first-class more refers to the technical quality, and that is not what we are after. -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Superior image - This one is good, too.
    Not too keen on this one either. I associate the word quite a lot with technical superiority, and I'd like a term which makes it clear that the technical condition is not what is in focus (it still has too illustrate the subject well in the review size, so it must not be crap either.) -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I like Significant image from Slaunger's list as well.
I think the word image is good in that it ties VI (for convenience) into QI. However, it invites confusion with QI. It may be natural to expect a VI to be either a higher or lower designation than QI, but instead its criteria are different and not a matter of degree. Alternatives are picture and illustration. Picture invites confusion with FP but that designation is very dissimilar and the risk of confusion is less. Illustration is distinct from the other terms. The first line of the proposal description includes the phrase "the most valuable illustration". It implies that the criteria include utility. However, we may wish to retain illustration for drawings, paintings, and other similar art. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I have the same understanding. I see VI (or whatever it will be called) as complementary/supplementary to QI, so with respect to prestige it is approximately as prestigious as QI, but not as prestigious as FP. -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What about most illustrative or utmost illustrative (photo/drawing)? --che 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think most illustrative is a good one too very much like most valuable and perhaps slightly better. I guess "Image" would need to be appended, like Most Illustrative Image? -- Slaunger 08:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When I was first toying with this sort of idea, it was in response to seeing images declined from FPC and QIC because they were not of high technical quality or size etc, eg Passchendaele aerial view.jpg as discussed here. So I suppose what I was thinking of is some way to highlight images of great significance, perhaps notable images, perhaps valued images. I think 'Significant Images' - images of great significance. --Tony Wills 12:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My motivation for the proposal is indeed triggered by a series of events at FPC and QIC similar to the example you give. That does not imply that I think there is anything fundamentally wrong with FPC or QIC, rather that we are lacking the right concept. Therefore this proposal. But OK, it seems like there are more than one who trigger on Significant Image. One final suggestion, which I just came up with, and which is along these lines as well is this:
  • Recommended Image. I think this describes quite well what it is about. It is images selected by the Commons community for their usefulness and value in Wikimedia projects. It does not signal that you shall use it. Rather, consider using this image if relevant. I think this is adequate. -- Slaunger 14:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't like Recommended Image initially, but it has grown on me. I agree that it is descriptive and distinguishes it from FP and QI. Also, it allows for the possibility of more than one RI for an subject. I like it. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks ;-) -- Slaunger 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I had actually overlooked it, but on close inpection of Tonys comment above, he mentioned ...valued image..., which differs from the original "Valuable Image" in a way I like. Thus, my final, final (promise) suggestion is to use:

  • Valued Image. I was going over the proposal once more yesterday, and it became clear to me that "value" is really a crucial element in describing what this is about. I think "Valued" is better than "Valuable" because
    • "Valued" does not indicate that all other images have no value.
    • "Valued" indicates that it has been selected by the Commons community for its value. It is valued by us, thus indicating a sort of subjectiveness, which I like. It is not the absolute truth and other editors (specialists) from other Wikimedia projects may disagree. For instance, we (the community) may have come to the conclusion that some image of a nudibranch is not "valued" (by us). Then a nudibranch expert comes by from, e.g., the French Wikipedia looking for a special kind of image to illustrate, e.g., how a specific genera of nudibranches lays eggs in a specific environment. This aspect may be present in the image, which was not considered "valued" (by us), due to ignorance, or said more politely, lack of specialist knowledge.
    • It has been suggested to introduce some levels of VI based on usefullness in Wikimedia projects (can be done later). The "Valued Image" can be the entry-level designation for VIs. It can later be promoted to "Highly Valued Image" (HVI) if the image proves to be very usefull in Wikimedia projects and perhaps, ultimately "Most Valued Image" (MVI) (in line with the name suggested by Lycaon) if it is used in very many Wikimedia projects.
    • "Valued" indicates that we appreciate the effort and resources used by the contributor to donate this image to the community. Be it investments in underwater equipment and travels or simply for taking the time to carefully photograph an everyday object, which nobody else has found interesting to do, set up some decent lightning, make the shot and upload it to Commons.

Very confusing with all these suggested terms, I know, but I find it rather important to spend some effort in fine-tuning this. -- Slaunger 08:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the discussion of the name helps clarify what we think this proposal is about, and I think that it shows there are a wide variety of ideas, there is a range from 'count how many times it is used', to 'is it unique'. I'm not sure one scheme will cover them all. I agree that 'valued images' has possibilities. And the suggested qualifiers help cover the range. Perhaps it would be better if the qualifiers weren't seen as a hierarchy (which causes us to rank disparate images), but were more specific, eg UVI (for unique or hard to obtain images), MWVI (for used on Many Wikis VIs), SVI (an image with great significance). Or used as a suffix eg VIU, VIMW, VIS.
    Ok, I think we should just start out simple with the 'Valued Image' without any bells and whistles. The possible extensions can be added as we go along. I think it will become clearer what is needed once the process is going. My immediate impression is that we shall keep it simple just that more that a handful of regular reviewers undstand what is going on - most importantly the editors from other Wikimedia projects, with 'repository user' use cases. -- Slaunger 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should dwell too much on the 'that name means every other image is not valued' type concern, as that is clearly not the intention, and we can not possibly try and counter every nuance of the name.
    I do not have a need for that know either - I think 'valued image' does it. -- Slaunger 12:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should just call it 'Squirrel Images' as a neutral term :-) --Tony Wills 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Squirrel Images has a not so fortunate connotation regarding the POTY2007 for me ;-). But kidding aside, Valued Image sounds sound to me. Let's get on with the project and get it finally on the rails please. Lycaon 12:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    OK,, you find 'Valued Image' is adequate as well. Good. Regarding putting it on rails I have previously asked for help doing this at COM:VP without much success. Although I may be fairly good at initiating proposals and help form the policies and procedures I am a real sucker when it comes to actual implementation and deployment. Much of this is due to lack of knowledge concerning the possibilities with wiki language, templates, logos, bots, etc. A (possibly incomplete) list of what I need help for is here ('Valuable' shall be substituted with 'Valued' in that list). Any volunteers?
    Did you by the way notice my "Valued image Set" addition to the proposal? Comments?

I also like Valued Image. The best of all suggestions so far. --MichaelMaggs 18:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, glad to hear that. Unless there are strong objections to this name I think we should stick to that then. I have adjusted the proposal accordingly. -- Slaunger 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I like valuable image, or valued image. Another, maybe more boring option, might be Useful Image. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Useful Image is also a good description of what we are after. But as you said it is perhaps not as catchy as valued image. -- Slaunger 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So far, Valued media seems the best compromise to me. --Foroa 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
So you think we should include sound and video in the proposal as well? I am hesitant to think so. First of all, the number of sound and video files we have are much more sparse at the moment. Secondly, it makes it harder to to understand how the concept relates to FP and QI, which only deals with images. As I see it, we could extend the concept later to Valuable Sound and Valuable Video. For now, I think we should stick to the images. -- Slaunger 20:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture Usage[edit]

This is a major factor, but not necessarily a criteria for election. It would be very nice if a toolserver could for example produce once per month a usage count of all pictures. Moreover, it would be extremely stimulating and motivating for the people that do all those efforts of working on the commons without having any idea if their efforts serve some purpose. I for one did never an effort to count the usage of my pictures because it is such a major hassle, but I would be very happy to know.

I agree. A recently uploaded image may not have come into use at all yet, simply because it has not been "discovered" by the relevant Wikimedia project editors. One aim of the proposal is to get these new and uniquely valuable contributions out in the open. -- Slaunger 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the idea of having a "where are my contributions used" button, I agree this could be valuable. Often I have found that my contributions are used in a context I had never envisioned, and it is interesting to get this feedback as it also gives directions on what makes an image valuable for Wikimedia projects and what an image contributor should look for when contributing with Images on Commons. Often it is other qualities in an image which makes it valuable for a Wikimedia project than the ones envisioned by the contributor. For instance, I recently discovered by chance that an iceberg image of mine was used in the introduction of the article for water on the English Wikipedia. I had never thought the image could be used in that context, and it gave for me a new perspective on what "valuable" is.-- Slaunger 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Although I think the possibilities for checking the usage of own contributions could be improved, I actually think it not such a major task to get a good impression given the facilities available today. Using the "Gallery" tab while on my user page I get an auto-generated list of own contributions. Each photo has an associated link, which presents the usage on all projects. Although this does not give the big picture right away, I do think it works pretty well. So does the Check usage tab accessible from an image page. -- Slaunger 09:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have uploaded hundreds of pictures, you don't even think on trying to find out manually, image by image, on what articles and pages your images are used. --Foroa 19:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The requirements[edit]

If we have simple evaluation rules, then we can have simple requirements. No need to make it more complex than needed. The geocoding requirement has nothing to do with the quality of the picture and can be added later if needed.

The geocoding has to do with the usefulnes and value of an image page for many types of images. there are exceptions as mentioned in the proposal. However, I think the geocoding clause should stay there. Aæthough this is unrelated to the image itself and its qualities it relates to the ability for users to find relevant content for Wikimedia projects. Say, if you are writing a wikimedia article about a specific region it is extremely helpfull to be able to open Google Maps/Google Earth, zoom in on the region and see little Wikimedia icons for each and every image originating from this region. Very powerful. And for animal and plant species a must unless the species is endangered or rare on the location. -- Slaunger 09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think however that for evaluation purposes in respect with previous selections, we will need a reference frame or galleries, so there might be a need for some sort of classification. --Foroa 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer one flat example gallery of what is compliant to or not to this proposal as initiated on the proposal page (can be improved and extended a lot). Once the process gets going the promoted images will be the reference frame. Concerning categorization I prefer a very flat categorization as cat tagging can be automated and I fear that the work needed for building up a parallel hierarchy of promoted images is not worth the effort. So, to search for VIs dealing with the Manhattan Bridge, you would search for images which has both the Category:Manhattan Bridge and Category:Valuable Image categories. Preferably, the VI images should also be placed in a VI section of a gallery of the subject to make it them easy to find. -- Slaunger 09:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The (s)election process[edit]

I have to do some more thinking on it and I would prefer to have feedback on the objectives and a trial of evaluation of the examples before going deeper in this aspect.


I know this has been focusing on Images but why focus on all media including sound and video Gnangarra 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good question. Against it, is that it may seem confusing to deal with valuable media but not quality media instead of only images. The proposal right now is also centered around images. They could be extended of course. Besides video and sound it could also be galleries. Like sometimes a process is best illustrated by a series of images. A single image of a proces only has limited value, but all the images considered as a set/gallery is valuable. I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. -- Slaunger 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The before-after image set given as an example by Tony above is actually a very good example. It is much more valuable to consider the two images as a set than individually. It is the difference between omages which gives the meaning. -- Slaunger 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Some people have been nudging me in the direction of this proposal because of the kind of volunteer work I've been doing: identifying important and potentially feature-worthy vintage images and restoring them for FPC candidacy. Below are a few recent finds.

One of the conclusions this work leads to is that a considerable share of encyclopedic material could never qualify for FP: the files aren't available in a large enough size or the original isn't an exceptional piece of photography, even if the subject is important and no better image exists.

Harriet Tubman: you could rotate, remove artifacts, sharpen, and fix the levels - believe me, I've tried it all - but this is still going to be a very soft focus portrait.

Now I like the idea of some place where these images can gain notice because it does make sense to prioritize useful material for export to various WMF projects. That provides incentive to restore material that's second tier in purely esthetic terms, but that carries inherent value. The big questions are how large and how selective do you intend this category to be, and what criteria drive it? Would you, for example, draw upon existing WMF project lists of core topics and seek to locate recommended illustrative images for them? Durova 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Durova,
I have noticed your work and appreciate it very much. The type of work you desribe is very much in scope of the VI project. The idea with my proposal is not to be very selective. A VI "just" has to be the best illustration of its kind and to be of value to WMF projects. Currently, I do not wish to narrow it more down than that. There can be very many VIs. As time progress with the VIs, some adjustments may be called upon. -- Slaunger 19:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


Quiet around idea came to me that dovetails with this somewhat, and I don't want to appear to steal anyone's thunder. I'm thinking of creating a Commons workshop akin to en:User:Durova/Landmark images in order to prioritize restoration on historic images of encyclopedic importance, whether or not they would qualify for featured picture candidacy. The idea would be to provide the various language editions of Wikipedia with a centralized location to request and obtain good restored illustrations for major topics. If the valuable images proposal takes off and this gets incorporated with that, so much the better. Durova 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is bit quiet here. I've been away for some days. As I see it there could be a synergy between the two projects. The restorations of historic images could be one of the sources for VI candidates. However, I do not think the two projects should be merged. I fear that could lead to confusion as VI is about much more than historic images. -- Slaunger 19:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
All right then, if you don't see this as stepping on your toes I'll move forward. Thanks for the response. :) Durova 20:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not. And it is not my toes anyway. It is a Community project. -- Slaunger 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here goes, then. User:Durova/Encyclopedic image restoration. Durova 21:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact carol about this. Thus user is IMO very skilled at image restoration. -- Slaunger 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, done. I've also posted at Village Pump. Durova 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't stop you. Enjoy! -- carol 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The workshop has 20 restored images now. Please keep in touch about how VI progresses. Durova 11:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Candidate template demonstration in new VIC candidate list page[edit]

Hi, I have done some preliminary work at trying to introduce a Valued Image Candidate (VIC) template to do it all, see {{VIC}} for documentation. Templates are certainly not my speciality (I am still looking for volunteers to help me deploy this project!), so I guess a lot can be improved. For instance, I would like a coloured border around the table, which depends on the status parameter. I just can't figure out how to do that.✓ Done Thank you for the hint, Lycaon! -- Slaunger 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) I have tried to demonstrate how the template can be used on a new VIC candidate list page. Do check that new page out, add your comments to the images already there to test the value discussion, do add more examples to test the VI concept and feel free to improve the template. -- Slaunger 14:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some more progress. Each nomination is now on a subpage (preparing for what I hope is a clever, maintenance-free, bot-friendly, bandwidth efficient, spot-weld-under-water, makes-coffee-too entry to all candidates), and I have added a draft guideline based on the proposal. All is now acessible on User:Slaunger/Commons:Valued images candidates. Do check it out and comment or add new test images for the stress test of the concept.
Oh, and I'd still love to get some volunteers to help me, I feel very lonely rolling this out. Like
  • A logo creator to make the missing Image:Valued image logo.svg.
  • A wiki-wiz to automate the nomination similar to at COM:FPC. A template-wiz capable of making a {{VICnom}} template in analogy to the existing {{FPCnom}} template. Should not be that hard.
  • A template wiz to beautify the {{VIC}} and also make it more clever, like automated vote count, that it automatically detects one of the four states (nominated|opposed|supported|discussed) based on intelligent parsing of the {{{review}}} parameter value.
  • An English native speaker to go through the written text and weed out all my linguistic mistakes and tighten it all up (I have a problem with brevity). The template should also be extended to support a reason field and a field with info about the creator, uploader, nominator, possible editor, etc. -- Slaunger 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the guideline I introduce the concept of having a Valued Image Set, but I have not thought that into the framework. Perhaps we should just wait and introduce that later?
Bedtime! -- Slaunger 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Try to have a look at Category:Valued images candidates, which is a first attempt to provide an alternative band-width efficient entrance to the VICs. The list is sorted by the date of nomination, oldest first. It can easily be extended by status-specific sub-categories such as Category:Discussed valued image candidates corresponding to the CR section at COM:QIC by straightforward extensions to the {{VIC}} template. The key used in the category lists can also be changed into more human readable form by using the DEFAULTSORT magic word (if only I could make that work :-( ).I had misunderstood the purpose of this Wikimedia magic word, and I realize it is a dead end. -- Slaunger 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) -- Slaunger 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "intelligent vote counting"? It may range from easy to impossible depending on the details. Superm401 - Talk 16:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be cool but every vote would have to be formatted correctly in order to be counted. I wouldn't count on users to do it right. →Rocket°°° 19:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What I have in mind is that a macro counts the number of expanded support/oppose and neutral images in the review section and displays the result in a seperate read only vote count line beneath in the template. So, this requires that reviewers use the vote templates to work. However, I agree with you Rocket000, that we cannot be sure users will do that. I therefore also envision that there is a human filter before promoting/declining to make sure all votes are there, and that there are no duplicate or illegal votes. So what I envision is a vote count template, which can count these votes based on {{{review}}} in the {{VIC}} template. It could be, e.g., a {{VIC-vote-count}} template, which could be called from the template (in its simplest form) as, e.g., Ongoing vote: {{VIC-vote-count|{{{review}}}|support}} support, {{VIC-vote-count|{{{review}}}|oppose}} oppose, and {{VIC-vote-count|{{{review}}}|neutral}} neutral. Do you see what I am getting at? -- Slaunger 19:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I think so... have you ever seen something similar done in a template (like on en.WP)? I'm not sure how it would work. A bot could always do it, though. →Rocket°°° 21:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As I see it the main problem in a template is iterating through the review comment to count up the votes. However, using the the MediaWiki String Functions Extension (have not tested if this works here) it should at least be possible to autodetect the status of the review (nominated|supported|opposed|discussed): If there are no votes, it is nominted; if there are support vote(s) and no oppose votes it is supported, and so on. I have not seen anything like this on en, I haven't looked either. I think it is good to use some energy on examining this though, as it means users can spend their time on nominating and reviewing the images instead of administering the VICs. -- Slaunger 22:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to the top of the page those aren't currently installed here. I'm going to look more into our options. →Rocket°°° 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be happy if you could look into it. As is clear from my previous comments I am not very knowledgeable concerning the possibilities, and I could use some assistance. -- Slaunger 08:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a way (without the not-installed String Functions), to e.g. detect that the string "I strongly support this becoming a valued image." means "support". Superm401 - Talk 08:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to use the {{support}}, {{oppose}}, and {{neutral}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, and Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral) voting templates. Users are used to doing that already at COM:QIC and COM:FPC. See Commons:Valued images candidates/candidate list for examples. Of course, some users will not be familiar with these templates in the beginning. The more experiences users should help them and, e.g., add the template explicitly if it is obvious that a user has forgotten a vote template in a vote. -- Slaunger 08:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Great idea[edit]

I've noticed that despite the Commons mission statement of, providing "media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project." neither QI nor FI seems to require that images actually be useful. The ongoing battle is simply between beauty and technical merit. Superm401 - Talk 16:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Superm401, Thank you for passing by and for liking the idea. I agree QI is mostly concerned by technical quality and not so much about usefulness. With respect to FPs it is actually stated in the guidelines that the value of the candidate for use ín Wikimedia projects is important, but I do agree that beauty seems in practise to be more important. I rather regret that but rather than fighting this, I put my energy (and unfortuately very limted time and technical skill) into putting VI on online. -- Slaunger 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to specify the class that the image is alleged to be the best of[edit]

What strikes me when reading through the trial postings on Commons:Valued images candidates/candidate list is how many images are accepted or declined without it ever becoming clear exactly which class of images the candidate is being tested against. According to the draft rules, a VI should be (at the time of nomination) "the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons", but that's not possible to determine unless the class (or "kind") is made explicit.

To take an example: my image Image:Durham Ranger salmon fly.jpg has been accepted on Commons:Valued images candidates/candidate list, but it's unclear whether it should be accepted as:

  • (a) the best image of a fishing fly,
  • (b) the best image of a salmon fly,
  • (c) the best image of a Durham Ranger salmon fly, or
  • (d) something else.

The class matters, as it will affect what happens to later nominations. What if I now wish to nominate Image:Green Highlander salmon fly.jpg? Unless we know what class the first was accepted under, we can't judge the second. If both are nominated as the best image of a fishing fly, then the second can't win without demoting the first. On the other hand, if the first has been accepted as the best image of a Durham Ranger salmon fly, the second could perhaps be accepted as the best image of Green Highlander salmon fly.

That leads me to suggest that each nomination should state, explicitly, the class that the image is alleged to be the best of. Then, if the image is accepted, that information should be retained on the image page, as part of the VI tag. That makes it clear for the future the basis on which the award has been made, and perhaps will encourage others to come along and say "I have a better image of xxx than that".

The easiest way to do this might be to have a mandatory field in the nomination template which says "This is believed to be the best image on Wikimedia Commons of ....", with the rest of the sentence being filled in with free text. Then, if the image is accepted, that phrase then remains as an integral part of the VI tag on the image page, for future reference.

There should be no need for any hard and fast regulation about the types of class that may be acceptable. A nominator may choose a narrow class to reduce the number of competing images but at the risk of rejection on the grounds that the class is too narrow. I would think that perhaps "the best image of a Durham Ranger salmon fly" might just be OK. --MichaelMaggs 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a very good point. I vaguely attempted to include this with the reasons field in the {{VIC}} template, but I agree with you that this should be improved. I suggest renaming that field to "most_valued_image_of", which will expand to "Nominated as the most valued image on Wikimedia Commons of ..." much as you suggest. And I think you hit it right on by saying that the nominator can narrow down the topic along the way at the risk that it gets too mariganal. I'll work on it right away. One interesting side-issue is that with this concept, one image can be VI within several subjects. For instance, the most valued image of a fishing fly is likely to be also the most valued of more specific subjects. -- Slaunger 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This is an important point. Moreover, I think one or more categories or gallery pages should be wikilinked in the nomination for it to be considered valid. This will facilitate the evaluation of the image. Moreover, it may encourage better indexing of images, a commendable result, should it occur.
Have a look at COM:VIC (now with shortcut!). Better now? I could add the scope of nomination in the thumbnails (by adjusting {{VIC-thumb}}) as well. Would that be an idea? -- Slaunger 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Valued Images Candidates Tests[edit]

Tests are still ongoing regarding the guidelines and review procedure for Commons:Valued Images Candidates (COM:VIC). The candidate list page has just been updated such that the Commons:Valued images candidates/candidate list overview display of candidate images is bandwidth efficient and informative (I hope) and I have recently added an assisted procedure for adding a new nomination quite similar to the procedure at COM:FPC. I have been staring at these things for too long though, and would appreciate if others could test that it actually works, and if anything could be improved. It would also be nice to get some more involvement of reviewers for our current test candidates. Templates are used extensively, throughout, which gives some flexibility in how we display the information, which is contained in the nominations. If you feel something should be done differently, do tell me. -- Slaunger 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding a new nomination (image)[edit]

The rules indicate that the name of the image should be pasted into the box excluding the IMAGE: prefix. For consistency with FPC, wouldn't it be better for the prefix to be included? It's caused me to muck up an FPC nomination already, and I ought to know well enough how to do that by now. --MichaelMaggs 18:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. I have thought about that too. Actually it was some remarks from Dschwen about internationalization, which triggered me into changing the concept from FPC. Can't remeber the exact argument, but I had the impression that the prefix "Image:" was subject to change in an internationalized world. Secondarily it makes life much easier for me in some templates. I cannot recall which. Just because it is done at FPC doesn't mean it is the right thing ;-) I think we are doing some pretty neat things here rethinking some concepts. -- Slaunger 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. --MichaelMaggs 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What happens after promotion?[edit]

Some of the test VICs are probably ready to be test-promoted to VI status now. Is there yet a procedure for doing that? --MichaelMaggs 18:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not one, which is written down yet. But my thoughts are as follows:
  1. State is changed to declined or promoted depending on the outcome. I imagine improving the {{VIC}} template such that the VIC is automatically associated with either Category:Declined Valued Image Candidates or Category:Valued Images, sorted by the date of nomination. That is, no manual moving into a log. Happens automatically by changing the state.
  2. The image line in the candidates list is removed.
  3. The image itself gets a {{VI}} stamp on it. The most_valued_image_of parameter is given as an argument. It automatically links to the VIC.
  4. I do not want a parallel coarse category structure for VI as we have for QI and which is causing a lot of work and quite some thinking from time to time
  5. The image is tagged with a small VI logo in the galleries on Commons on which it is used.
  6. If the image is not used in a gallery, af Valued Images of X subcat is created and the image is associated with that cat.

Minimum maintenance philosophy. Will it work?-- Slaunger 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


It seems reasonable not to alter the proposal at User:Slaunger/Valuable Images further at this stage. Instead the energy is focussed on work in Commons name space. Thus, it also seems sensible to stop making new threads here and instead continue the discussion of new topics at Commons talk:Valued images candidates instead as all major changes is happening at Commons:Valued images candidates now. Did you know the shortcut COM:VIC? I have posted a reference the original proposal and this discussion page from the new talk page. There are still some active threads here. I suggest to continue these threads here. It is too confusing to move them in my opinion. -- Slaunger 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)