This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since March 2008, Commons:Valued images candidates has matured somewhat, and the maintenance of the original proposal and continued discussions in the original namespace has now stopped. Further discussions are therefore to take place here. -- Slaunger18:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Had a go at sets
Since it says sets are encouraged, I had a go at trying to make a way to handle sets.
...It's not quite effective yet, but, eh... had to be done sometime. A sensible method might be to list it under the first image, but identify it as a set somehow?
I was looking for the newer images. Speaking for myself and potential nominations, my brain has ceased being willing to determine what images should/could get approval. That is an apology and perhaps the beginning of something I can work on. -- carol09:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the latest image set attempts? If so, these are in their infancy, and reviewing them does not really work yet due to some problems with the templates. I will have a look at those now. -- Slaunger22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for the sea mouse image when I started this. Since then the sets showed up -- they are really cool (except the ice berg which is probably cold ;))
The sea mouse image is not at a starting point -- it is in the middle of the page compared to other entries. Perhaps the day needs to be less new to me before I work through how to comment on the sets. -- carol23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is the last image in a row in a table, but it appears to be floating due to an awfull lot of extra empty paragraphs being inserted in that table cell. It is due to a linebreak flaw in {{VIC-candidate-images}}. I know where the problems are, but when I try to fix them, the functionality of the template is broken. It is driving me craaaiiiizzzy! -- Slaunger19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Various Points
First off I want to say Thanks! I think this is a GREAT idea. QI is almost exclusively about photographic technical quality. That leaves a huge amount of Valuable work out. So now a few points:
Is this to be Exclusively about Images? There is a lot of other undervalued good work like charts(graphs) and music scores, as well as SVG clip art (not to mention video and audio) etc... which need to be recognized. If it is to be limited to just Images than please make it clear, and consider having a parallel scheme for Valued Media. If you intend to include any media, then the name needs to be changed (lets not repeat the Image namespace ugly Legacy)
VI is about the same type of media as on COM:QIC and COM:FPC. That is, individual photographs, scans, illustrations, and animated gifs: It is not about video and sound. As a new thing as compared to QI and FP we also considers ets of those media as sometimes a set of photos/illustrations are much more valuable as a complete set than each individual image. Typically an image set illustrating some kind of process. It has been discussed to make the definition more broad to include all types of media on Commons. However, in the end I decided (and no-one objected) to exclude sound and video. There are for me several reasons for excluding these types of media
When launching a new project like VI it is important for the regulars and visitor to be able to relate it to and distinguish it from the other media-assessing projects here on Commons. The most well-known are FP and QI and I wanted this to be a complementary system. So to avoid confusion, I have left out the sound and video as these are not there in FP and QI. You might argue that I have not done this consistently as the sets concept has been introduced too. However, I consider the users here so intelligent that I think they can also handle something new ;-)
The vast majority of media types on Commons are still of the type which is within scope of FP, QI and VI. The number of good valuable sound and videos here are limited and also stored in a slightly esoteric format, Thus, I feel, these type of media has not yet reached a critical mass for sustaining such a review process. I am concerned that the valuedness of the sound/video nominations would be too diverse and that the availability of comptetent reviewers is still limited.
By dealing also with sound/video media types the whole setup would be considerably more complicated. The guidelines would be lenghtier, the template management would be more intricate and the process more complicated. I want to avoid these complicating aspects.
Having said that I also acknowledge your point that there is valuable material around which will not be in scope of VI or VIS. And this is of course unfortunate. As I see it this can be solved by launching over time related concepts such as Valued Sound (VS) (e.g., the most valued sound of the pronounciation of a specific Maltese letter), Valued Sound Sets (VSS) (e.g., the whole Maltese alphabet pronounced), Valued Video (VV) and Valued Video Set (VVS). I just do not think the time is ripe for launching these initiatives yet. -- Slaunger22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with you on Video and images, even if such media needs all the encouragement it can get, you're right its still early days. My concern was more with regards to such media as Music scores, documents, and Graphs and charts, which while occupying a static 2 dimensional space should not, strictly speaking, be classified conceptually as Images. What I have in mind is something like this graph, which in my opinion is a very valuable. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
With images I think of media in the file formats jpg, svg, png (seldom), and gif (animated). Although pdf is a 2D-like format I do not want to include those in the VI circuitry, because, as I understand, there is no method for rendering them in the thumbnail and review sizes. As I see it the graphs and charts you mention are therefore within scope of the project. In principle I think charts and graphs are also in scope on FP and QI, although I think getting a graph promoted as FP would be really hard, as it would have to be truly spectacular ;-) When it comes to scores and documents, I acknowledge that they can be very valuable, but I think it would really be out of place to call such types of media an "Image", and secondly it does not give much meaning to review scores and document in the review size stated. Thus, I think these are out of scope of this project. I acknowledge that these things can be made more precise in the guidelines, and I will add that now.-- Slaunger20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to graphs, I personally think your example is a valuable one. To consider if it could be VI it should be compared to other charts on the same subjects. I have not done that yet. A side-issue: I notice the graph is in png format. It is recommended to have graphs in svg format, and I am wondering if it would be sensible to add that in the guidelines. I will initiate a seperate thread on this issue. -- Slaunger20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The description seems to imply that There shall be only one Valued Image per concept. If this is so then you cannot have the 'once a VI always a VI' criteria as that would be contradictory, there would have to be a demotion mechanism, at least to Former VI. (of course one could adopt a policy of weak enforcement).
Yes, we have had two alternatives open. Once a VI always a VI was the first one. My motivation for this concept what that it seemed discouraging for users to have their contributions demoted as is done at FPC and secondly the resources spend delisting could be better used on adding content. However, the alternative, the so-called "Most Valued Review" seems now to be the best solution. Here two candidates compete for being the most valued of its kind in a fair process, which seems less random and not as discouraging as the FPC delisting process. I think we will end of solving the "most vlaued of..." problem this way. -- Slaunger22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. it is time to make the final decision about this. I have now tentatively striked out the Once a VI always a VI phrase and opened a thread seeking final consensus to go for Most Valued Review. -- Slaunger22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea of Valued Sets is also very important, but it is said that such sets need to demonstrate different aspect or phases of a concept. What about Valued Galleries? Let us take "sunrise" for example. wouldn't a well maintained, hand picked and select gallery of great sunrise images (essentially all of the same thing, for where would you draw the line? at the equator?) be a great asset? I'm sure if someone was looking for an image for a sunrise, to include in a wikibook recipie of tequila sunrise, just to evoke the emotion, would find such a gallery handy.
Nah, I think that if some wanted a sunrise for a Tequila sunrise recipe this user should really look for featured pictures of sunrises. I do not think having Valued Galleries is a good idea. As you said such galleries has to be maintained. Who decides that it is still valuable after adding or removing an image? The maintainer? If it is the community I find it too resourceful to let it pass through a vote each time it needs updating due to the continuous flow of great sunrise images. So, I really think the sets should be reserved for sets of images which has special values when seen together. The completeness or process the images illustrate as a set is what gives it value. -- Slaunger22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so this example I put forward was stupid, but it is a fine line between what is a collection of images displaying different aspects of the same concepts and just different Images which are (almost?) equivalent. Good guidelines are essential for this, leaving too much to subjectivity on what qualifies as a valid candidate might be counter-productive. You talk of process and completes; but keep in mind that while that makes sense in technical and scientific fields it might not make much sense in the arts and humanities. A set of images illustrating the development of abstract art in the western world can never be really complete (why choose one artist over an other) and can at best hint at the process, yet it can be quite valuable and educational. Of course the best approach is to play it by ear, and refine things as we go along, but its no harm being aware of the potential issue.--Inkwina (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
These are valid points. My current view on this is that sets of images, which are always incomplete as (in your example) illustrating the development of abstract art in the western world is to stretch the concept over its limits. For me the added value of each individual image in such as set would probably not exceed the my perceived value of it when seen as a set. Perhaps when put in a context with text like in a Wikipedia article on the subject, but this is where the editors of WMF projects using Commons as an image repository comes in. Such editors should be prepared to look for images to illustrate such an article in several Commons galleries and categories specialized for such an article in the concepts of the country to which the article is targeted. For such a broad concept, there is a lot of relativism is what is considered valued. For instance, a Chinese editor writing on the topic for the Chinese Wikipedia may have other preferences as compared to a German editor writing the same topic on the German Wikipedia. I bet that in the latter case, German abstract art is more prone to be included, because the article is set in context to German culture. I think the Thespis and the iceberg series test nominated there now are more of a generic, absolute character concerning value. The Thespis nomination is IMO a good example of a complete set in the realm of arts and humanities showing that it is not exclusively for topics of a technical or scientific character, I have not yet had the oppertunity to look at your graph image set candidate. Will get back to that...
I will have another critical look at the VIS guideline to see if it can be clarified. Otherwise we will have to make the last refinements as we go along as you say. -- Slaunger22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Logo: I think it should look like a badge, and that it should not be tightly linked with wikipedia. which means that my favorite is 2. that said if the wikipedia logo of 1 where replaced with the commons logo and the V of 4 it might be a winner. BTW did I say I'm amazed and jealous of how LadyofHats came up with 8 great logos 6 of which I think are fantastic!
Yes, we are very fortunate to have such an excellent illustrator as LadyofHats being willing to spend resources on making a logo for VI! -- Slaunger22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Commons recommends that SVG is to be used for diagrams, charts, symbols, and flags. Is this something we should reinforce in the guidelines in a hard or soft way? Some suggested phrases:
It is recommended that diagrams, charts, symbols and flags are provided in SVG format.
or
Diagrams, charts, symbols and flags shall be provided in SVG format.
or
Diagrams, charts, symbols and flags are preferred in SVG format. PNG shall only be used when the SVG rendering on Commons gives rise to significant degradation of the image quality.
or
Should we just be indifferent about the file format? If it looks good in review size this is what matters!?
I would go for the 3rd option. Actually I would not accept my own gallery submission as this kind of image should not only be SVG but also have a) the raw data (or url to it, e.g. link to official description of flag on national site, link to csv data for graphs etc..) and b) where applicable the source code (gnu plot, scx, perl script, etc...) for creating it. Of course, such info would be required only if available and applicable.
These are actually quite valid points. I think these issues about publishing the source data or link to them and also include the script or whatever, which generated the graph, should be included in the guidelines. Perhaps you could give it a try at formulating something about that? You seem very knowledgeable about what is required. -- Slaunger08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Test review clean-up
I have promted/declined some VICs, which had been hanging around for a long time and for which it seemed clear if they were VI or not. They are now removed from the list of nominations. They can, however, be found in
The nice thing about these categories is that the candidates are automotically added to them 'under the hood' when the status of the nomination is updated to declined or promoted. If you feel some of the candidates have been moved prematurely to the closed declined or promoted states, go change the status to "discussed" (this removes the association to the category) and add then on the list of pending candidates again. Comments? -- Slaunger00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In view of my comment above I hear you ask 'why did you bother creating the set?' Well, testing! and BTW the set generating form is not working too well. I still had to edit the resulting page manually (replace templates, remove gallery tag) :-( I tried fixing it now. (changed Template:VISC-add-nomination2 to use VISC-thumb).
I am glad you tested it! And yes, I know the add nomination template did not work well, I am sorry ;-( I recently made som dramatic changes to {{VISC}} allowing for gallery display in review size whilst opening up for also showing the same images in normal thumbnail gallery format in the candidates list (due to bandwidth concerns) in a new {{VISC-thumb}} template. Unfortunately, I did not get as far as also updating the nomination template such that it was in sync with the other templates. I am actually quite impressed that you (almost) managed to make a succesful nomination despite these flaws, and great that you also have tried to fix it with a new template (I will try to get some time for reviewing the add nomination process and also your nomination later this evening). -- Slaunger08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the thumbnail display suitable?
Currently, Valued Image Candidates and Valued Image Candidate Sets are being displayed on COM:VIC in reduced thumbnail presentation using two templates {{VIC-thumb}} and {{VISC-thumb}}. The most important feature of this display is that the images are shown in a resolution near normal gallery size. The purpose of this is to make the load time reasonably short.
The candidates are shown in the larger review size using the {{VIC}} and {{VISC}} templates for rendering the actual review subpages. The information displayed in the review pages are passed as parameters, like, e.g., the review field. The same fields and information is available for the thumb templates, but here only the most vital fields are used for display, the purpose being not to overburden the user on the nomination overview page with a lot of text.
However, I was wondering if we should display further fields in thumb view, especially the important review field?
I would say there is plenty of room for the set nominations as they take up a lot of space already and fill the page width. For the image candidates I am more concerned that the review field may be so large that it occupy quite tall columns of text underneath some of the images, thus making the nomination page many pages long. On the other hand it is annoying that you have to enter the subpage to see the subpage (to see if anything has changed), especially for monitoring changes which has not let to a change ion the status state, which determines the color of the border around each nomination.
What do you think? Should the review field be displayed in thumb size as well?
I saw somewhere an example of an emerging possibility to have pop-up windows showing user defined information, when the mouse is resting over a certain area. If possible, this could be used to e.g. display the review field as a pop-up windiw, when the mouse was hovering over a candidate image or set.
Hmm.. Not much response.... Anyway. I have now tried to change the layout of the nomination list such that the review field is included. It gives a more verbose output, but as I see it it is more useful to see the reviews right away. Do you agree? -- Slaunger20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Voting and promoting
Very little is said in the guidelines about the voting and promotion processes except that they are to be similar to COM:QI CR. Well, I think it should be more sophisticated than that, as the evaluation is more subjective than in QIC. That will also bring an extra credibility to the project (especially for our en:wiki friends). Here are some ideas (not yet matured enough to become "suggestions"):
As I see it reviewing VICs are not more subjective than reviewing QICs and I actually find it less subjective than reviewing FPCs! But that is only my subjective POV ;-). Concerning how elaborate the review process should be, it is a balance between efficiency/throughput and rigor/credibility. My initial view on this has been to favor throughput/efficiency at the cost os some rigor. My reasons for this are
I think (or hope) that the flow of images through VI will be just as plentifull as at QIC. Thus, I think it shall be a light-weight process, otherwise there will not be the needed reviewing resources available (I think).
Even if a review turn out to be a mistake there is Most Valued Review. Here a current VI can be tested against another condidate in a comparison review. The best wins in a CR manner. This is the (only) way a VI can be demoted. -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A vote should always have a meaningfull justification. Justifications like "because I like it", or "great", or "wow" should not be considered and could be striked out by the closer. (Question: should other languages be allowed?)
Although I really appreciate justified votes, I am concerned about reinforcing justifications. Alhough you give some examples about what is not good enough as a justification. I am concerned about the closing users judgement in this. Rather I think we shall try to educate reviewers and (initially kindly) request for justifications, especially, when they seem unjustified. Although review comments are preferred for convenience in English, I think review in other languages are also OK. language barriers should not be the inhibitor for participating. Often there are other reviewers around, who can help translating (if this is needed). -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Newly created users, without am agreed minimum of days/edits, should not be allowed to vote. Or, at least, those votes could be striked out by any user in case of suspiction of fraud. This is to make VIC less vulnerable to socketpuppetry and other forms of forcing a promotion. There is also the risk of "national voting" (for example, with maps and national symbols) but I have no idea how to deal with that.
I suggest we start out without having such a rule. If it turns out to be a problem and this problem is clearly correlated with users being newly created, I would consider adding such a rule. -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, such a rule will also not be beneficial for the initial involvement of the en users, who are considering to setup a parallel system. It could be seen as a barrier. -- Slaunger19:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
An image is promoted with a minimum of 3 and a 2/3 majority of support votes. For example, 3:1, 4:2, 5:2, etc.. The promotion is automatic 48 hours after the last vote (like in QIC).
The majority vote idea is too elaborate for my taste. If an image is promoted by error, we always have Most Valued Review. Concerning the resting time, 48 hours is a reasonable target. I think in the beginning it shall be larger as the activity will be low. Gradually, we can then decrease it as suited. -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Non-promoted images stay in the review section for a maximum period of 7 days
I suggest that in the beginning we set no unassessed image time limit. If it becomes a problem with a big pile-up of unasessed images in the cabdidates list, we could add such a timer. the exact interval shall be adjusted according to the need. -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Finally, a candid question: how high should the VIC bar be put at its start? And how should we deal with a flood of FP and QI nominations? Maybe it is wiser to start with a high value-bar (enc value, rather than imag quality) Alvesgaspar14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The test reviews we have here are trying to establish that bar. Of course the higher the bar, the more elaborate can the reviewing process be. The bar should be exactly as described in the guidelines, which I think are converging to quite clear statements of what is, and what is not a VI. As I see it the number of VIs can be just (or even more) plentifull than QI. Not due to a low bar, but due to diversity (I hope). -- Slaunger16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Valued image logo draft proposals
LadyofHats has been so kind to initiate some very nice work on a valued image logo. Her draft proposals can be seen here. She has asked for my opinion on which version(s) she should try to make some further work on. However, I would much rather like to ask the users here what you think? The topic has previously been discussed quite thoroughly here. I suggest to recap that discussion first if you are not familiar with it. Since I believe the logo has been discussed quite thoroughly already, I suggest going right to commenting the proposals, which I enumerate 1, 2..., 8 beginning in the upper left corner, 1...4 is the first row, 5...8 is the second row. No votes please, just comments. I think we should aim for iterative consensus not a simple majority vote. -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
#1, Golden puzzle globe with caption
I like the visual appearance of the golden globe. How are these types of logos typically used in Wikimedia projects? -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, we do not a Wikipedia-specific icon in the logo. There are other WMF projects than the Wikipedias and we do not want to have the value term confused with the more specialized encyclopedic value associated with the Wikipedias. -- Slaunger20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I like this one a lot. The seal reminds me of a sort of "approval" and it is along the same lines as the QI logo, which is also a seal, which i think is good as the VI system is parallel/complementary to the QIs. The curly V is visually appealing as it is quite different from other logos. My concern is how smudged out this will be when the SVG is rendered in really small size as i expect it will be when used as e.g. a small marker image to indicate that an image in a gallery is VI. Maybe a more simple V will work better in small size. I guess it is also a goal that the file size of the logo should be relative small due to concerns of bandwidth. -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of using the Commons logo, as the VIs reflects the opinion of value of the Commons community users. Value is not absolute, and I like the idea that it is an opinion about value based on the scope of Commons (value for existing and future potential Wikimedia projects). Others may have other definitions of value, which is perfectly OK. This is our opinion. -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my favourite. There is also some space at bottom left for some distinguishing feature to be added to convert it into a VI set logo. --MichaelMaggs21:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
this one is the standout, though maybe the grey area could be the wikipedia globe as thats the basis for assessing value. Gnangarra09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree that the wikipedia globe is the (only) basis for assesing value. The globe gives associations to encyclopedic value and although the Wikipedias are perhaps the most well-developed Wikimedia projects right now, we should not forget all the other Wikimedia projects which Commons feeds material into: WikiBooks, WikiQuote, WikiVersity, WikiSpecies, WikiNews, as well as possible future Wikimedia projects. The value term used here is more broad than encyclopedic. So, if an existing Wikimedia icon is to be an element of the VI logo, I think it should only be the Commons icon (or all of them, but that would probably be a mess...) -- Slaunger20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not too keen on this one. It has discussed to introduce a logo in bronze colors to open up for later upgrades to silver and gold levels (based on yet to be defined metrics). However, I do not think it a god idea to explicitly write "bronze" as this indicates that others came ahead of you, which may not be the case. -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this would be good for QI (technical; more to-the-point) and that VI take QI's logo (more artistic-looking). I just don't see this as a good fit for VI. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
#6, Curly Golden V
Quite similar to #2. I like this one as well, but i have the same concerns about file size and display is small resolution. maybe if the "V" was simplified? -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I differ from the others on this one: of both this set & the 2nd set posted below, this is my favorite. Personally, I like the look of the compass. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
#8, Gold bar with caption
Not to keen on it in its current form, but I like the bronze, silver, gold bar idea. Maybe if the proposal was elaborated a little? -- Slaunger20:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I also like the bar idea, but not this execution of it. (I tried myself, but it didn't turn out good at all.) - Rocket00002:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
What a pleasant surprise to get home to! Again, I very very much appreciate the work you are putting in on working with the VI logo. I think you have made great progress. I have some general remarks. I think it is important that the logo is recogniseable when rendered in very small size such as 15 or 20 px wide as is costumary when using it as a VI indicator in galleries. Take the quality images logo for instance:
185 px
20 px
15 px
By playing around with the zoom level when viewing your newest drafts I find several of them get smudged out when viewed in small size. As I see the detail level is a little too high in some of the proposals. Especially, I think the words "Valued Image" is not needed explicitly in the image. This will most often be spelled out in the VI and VIS templates the logo will be used in. Similarly, I think the very curly "V" in some of the proposals have too many details to be meaningful when viewed in small size (although they look nice in full size). I guess there can also be a concern with the file size of the final SVG. Since the logo may be of potential future use on very many pages I think it is important that the file size of the svg is kept on the low side. Based on these observations and my previous comments I would say that the following graphical elements shoould be there. The letters "V" and "I" (and "S" for sets), the Wikimedia logo, and something like a seal/medal/metal bar should be there. Based on these preferences my favorite proposals are along the lines of the second image from the left in the top row (I like the graphical layout), the first image in the second row (I like the colour of the Commons logo on this one), and the second image in the fourth row. If the ideas in these logos could be combined and simplified, I think it would be perfect.
I may be wrong in some of my views about this as they are based on non-optimal scaling of your pixelized proposals. -- Slaunger22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a stamp of some sort is more preferable to a script logo. Therefore, with the most recent selection, I'd nix the bottom half. Unfortunately nothing really stands out of the top rows: I like them, but I just don't see one with that "wow this is it" factor. I do concur that the simplicity & recognisability of the QI logo is spot-on and a great aspiration for the VI logo. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
While I am on vacation I have a problem for any one of you to solve.... The add nomination input boxes would be way cooler if they were preloaded with a reasonably good text such that you did not have to copy and only edit the features specific to the nomination. I find it challeging to make it work such that un-subst'ed templates, tildes, etc are being put in the right way and not subst'ed. I am sure someone smarter than me can do it :-)
Preload image nomination
The task here is to make a template, {{VIC-nom-preload}}, which when used as a preload parameter in an input box results in the following text being pasted in the edit form
<noinclude>=== {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} ===
{{VIC
</noinclude><includeonly>{{VIC-thumb </includeonly>
|image={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
|date=~~~~~
|nominator=~~~
|most_valued_image_of=a/the...
|orientation=portrait <!-- change to landscape is relevant -->
|status=nominated <!-- Change to supported, opposed or discussed as appropriate when adding reviews -->
|usedin=<!-- List of links to usages on Wikimedia project content pages (optional) -->
|review=<!-- Itemized list of review comments. -->
}}
when pressing the button here:
Don't save the foo.jpg test page!
Once this is accomplished, the instructions in {{VIC-add-nomination}} shall be simplified accordingly as the copy instructions should be deleted.
Similar game, this time it is {{VISC-nom-preload}} which needs to be done right. This time the text, which needs to go there is
<noinclude>{{VISC
</noinclude><includeonly>{{VISC-thumb
</includeonly>|title={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
|ingallery=Image:foo.jpg{{!}}foo description
Image:bar.jpg{{!}}bar description
....
|description=A description of the set (optional).
|date=~~~~~
|nominator=~~~
|most_valued_images_of=A/The...
|orientation=landscape <!-- Change to portrait is approriate -->
|status=nominated <!-- Change to supported, opposed or discussed as appropriate when adding reviews -->
|usedin=<!-- Links to WMF content pages where one or more of the images are used>
|review= <!-- Itemized list of review comments goes here -->
}}
when pressing the button here:
Don't save the Foo Set test page!
Once this is accomplished, the instructions in {{VISC-add-nomination}} shall be simplified accordingly as the copy instructions should be deleted.
Done. The trick is to use neither nowiki nor pre. But you dont want the preload wikitext to be parsed. The way to still achieve that is by breaking all parsable tags by randomly inserting "<includeonly></includeonly>", right into the tags, like so: <noin<includeonly></includeonly>clude>. --Dschwen22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thank you for fixing it and for giving me the hint, which I'll add to by book of ancient template lore. -- Slaunger19:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Changes in scope
What should the procedure be when a change in scope is needed - see Commons:Valued images candidates/Concretion and crystals.jpg ? Can the nominator change the scope and ask voters to reconsider or should a new nom be made? If the latter, there may need to be some mechanism for existing support votes to be reset after a change in scope, otherwise a nominator could widen the scope at the last minute and rely on existing support votes that had been made on the basis of the original, narrower, scope. --MichaelMaggs07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... how about marking the Scope field so: Scope Changed on 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC) to New Scope from Old Scope
Then have the bot intelligent enough to only consider votes after the given date? All scope changes would need to be well commented as well. It could become complicated to implement though. --Inkwina (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, some kind of reset mechanism is required. I am actually inclined to believe that an entirely new nomination is in order. It is the cleanest thing to do, albeit tedious. However, that imposes a practical problem with clashes of namespace. When an image is nominated a subpage is made, which has the exact same name as the image. If an image is to be renominated with another scope this will not work as the subpage is already taken by the original nomination! That is a problem for renominating if we also want to keep the old nomination (which I think we should). Also, it will not work to simply add to the original subpage as that will break all the template logic embedded in the system. This is a real problem as, in principle, an image may be valued within several different scopes. For instance, mbz1 has nominated this image
within three different scopes. The outcome may be that it is not considered the most valued within some of the scopes but others. I conclude from this that what we really need is a further extension of the namespace used for the nominations such that it also includes the scope(s). One approach could be to have a subpage naming scheme like this
Commons:Valued images candidates/Image_name/scope
such that mbz1's nomination really should be split in three different subpages:
Commons:Valued images candidates/Fogbow spectre and glory filtered.jpg/Solar glory
Commons:Valued images candidates/Fogbow spectre and glory filtered.jpg/Spectre of the Brocken
Commons:Valued images candidates/Fogbow spectre and glory filtered.jpg/Fog Bow
each having its own independend review process. This is the cleanest way to do it. There will be no doubt on how to interprete the results of the review.
However, that imposes some new work. When creating the nomination, both the image name and the scope of the nomination shall be specified as input for creating the right subpage. I have no idea how to merge the input from two input fields into the creating of a subpage (In the beginning it could be done manually). Some templates would have to be changed too, but that is not a major problem. Much easier to do now than later. -- Slaunger20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
IMO the image of fogbow, Spectre of the Broken and glory could be valuable exactly because it shows all three rare phenomenon together. The scientists are interested in seeing them all together because it helps them in measuring of the size of water droplets in the fog for example. In other words the image of these three phenomenon together could be a scope on its own.--Mbz121:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I did not get that point. Anyway, an Image could be nominated within several different scopes, so I think it is of relevance to settle the principal discussion of how to handle it, as we will experience it sooner or later. -- Slaunger21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
With respect to name space clashes, this iddue is resilved by my recent addition of a subpage parameter in the image page. This makes it possible to have a subpage name which differs from the image name, thus several nominations of the same image within different scopes. My previous thought about using the scope as a further subpage underneath the image page is hereby abandoned as overly tedious/complicated as opposed to just using another subpage name at the time of nomination. -- Slaunger09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So to go back to my initial query, are you saying that if the scope changes the nomination should be restarted from scratch ? (sorry - haven't really understood about the parameter thing). That sounds fine to me. Actually, from the test noms so far I would expect we will have to do a little initial explanation that the scope is intended to be a generic field within which the image is alleged to be the best. I think that we will - at the start - get many very narrow 'scopes' which are actually simple descriptions of the image. Those should be rejected, as 'too narrow', since: (1) Any image can be the 'best' within a sufficiently narrow scope, and (2) such descriptions are not useful for someone wanting to search through the list of Valued Images, later, in order to find a good example of a particular field. --MichaelMaggs17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nvm about the parameters stuff, it was just a technical detour where I had to convince myself that the template setup did not introduce constraints in how to do things. In short, they do not, so we can focus on the process of scope change. Maybe you are right that the scope thing can be explained better. You are very welcome to try and improve that part as I am not a native writer. Concerning a reset, I think the scope can be changed as long as there are no actual votes cast on the nomination. I guess it will often occur that a reviewer makes an initial comment about an inadequate scope giving the nominator some time to adjust the scope. Once votes have been cast a reset of the votes can be relevant. In the beginning I do not think we should spell it out more than that but let experience guide us into more solid guidelines concerning a change in scope. -- Slaunger17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to be more specific about how to put in a value in the scope (most_valued_image_of parameter in {{VIC}} and {{VIC-thumb}}) by elaborating a little bit on the instructions which are shown at the top of a preloaded VIC nomination page by updating the helper template {{VIC-add-nomination}}. Is that better? -- Slaunger09:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that does help. Are we at the stage now where you would like users to start making edits to the main project page? I could add a more detailed description of 'scope' there if you like. --MichaelMaggs16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(reset indents) Sure, you and other users are welcome to make edits to the main project page. Of course, if you implement dramatic changes it is (as always) a good idea to first discuss it here. I think it would be a good idea if you acould add a scope section. -- Slaunger20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. I saw how you improved COM:VI while I was away and I appreciate that.
Promotion rules
Have I missed something? I can't find any description of how to promote a supported image to VI status. When should this be done? There is some discussion at #Voting and promoting, but have the rules been written up yet? --MichaelMaggs20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. Actually you just removed the one sentense which related vaguely to this, which is "QIC-like" in the What else section ;-). Anyway I suggest that if a VIC has only support/oppose votes it shall be promoted/declined 7(?) days after the last vote. As activity increases, the number of days may be decreased. -- Slaunger21:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I was going to add this at the top of the candidates page, but it seems there is still one thing missing: what happens to nominations that have attracted both support and oppose votes? Is a majority decison accepted - eg 7 days after the last vote? If so, that's the only rule needed; no need to specify "if a VIC has only support/oppose votes" as suggested in the previous para. --MichaelMaggs16:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Forget that: I've just seen that the rules are actually set out in the template {{VIC}}. I may pull those out and add them to one of the main pages. Not sure yet where they should best go. --MichaelMaggs17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Once a VI, always a VI vs. Most Valued Review
For some time, we have had two open possibilities concerning demoting of a VI. The opriginal proposal said Once a VI, always a VI. This was to keep things simple and focus resources on adding content instead of removing content. Also the delisting process at COM:FPC can be very demotivating for the original contributors, as it sometimes seems a little random, which image is beeing picked out for delisting and accusations about campaigning are sometimes seen. Not very fruitful.
However, as has been pointed out during the discussions, this once -> always concept seems incompatible with the idea of VI, that it is the most valued image of its kind. It may be superseeded by a better candidate at a later stage. This triggered the idea of having a Most Valued Review (MVR), where two or more images/image sets compete for being the most valued of its kind. In this manner, the demoting is not done in a spontaneous manner, it is always triggered by some user believing he/she has a more valuable candidate for a given topic, and the images are being compared in a review.
As the discussions have progressed it is my feeling that consensus is drifting towards the Most Valued Review demoting scheme, and I have therefore tentatively striked out the Once -> always phrase in the guidelines. However, I would like to check out that this is also how other VI stakeholders see VI demoting. If we go for Most Valued Review we also need to settle the details of how to do this. This will be the topic of a following thread if it becomes relevant. -- Slaunger22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, too. It's inevitable that as technology improves, past/existing VI's are eventually going to be replaced by far higher-quality VIs. Just a couple years ago, a high-end digital photo came from a 3 or 5 MP camera... now we're pretty much triple that. There will have to be some mechanism in place to delist obsolete photos, though there might need to be definition for subjects which may have multiple photos under different conditions (lighting, angle, actions, etc... would we keep one for all, or one for each?). --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Are you referring to the status field, which today accepts the value opposed, but not Opposed? Well, the templates could be tweeked such that, e.g., they automatically convert the value of the status field to lower case before checking its value. However, I would rather avoid it as it increases the complexity of the templates (5-6 different templates depend on this field), makes them harder to maintain, and harder to test. Why would you like this flexibility? If it is to avoid confusion if the field is given an invalid value, I could implement logic such that a clear message is displayed for to the user warning that the status field has an invalid value and listing the valid states (emphasizing case sensitivity). -- Slaunger20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It was just that when I tested it I automatically, without thinking, used an initial capital, and it didn't work. Your 'error message' idea seems good. --MichaelMaggs17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will implement that, when I get the time (not a high priority activity, I think). I will be off-line during the weekend.-- Slaunger12:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have implemented and tested the helper template {{VIC-is-status-valid}} and played around with it in my sandbox to make this work. For some reason it does not work yet. Could a template-wiz help? -- Slaunger15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In the templates, can we change the variable "most_valued_image_of" to, say, "scope", since the existing wording very clearly seems to expect a description of the image rather than a generic scope (see several of the test nominations). Slaunger: I won't do that myself as I'm afraid of messing up the functionality. --MichaelMaggs16:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Michael, you have done well. I like the new scope page a lot, especially the "mouldy nectarines" example. I agree with you that the most_valued_image_of -> scope transition is a most wanted change, and I will go right for it now. It will be tedious to change, some hours of boring editing I think, but it is much easier to do now than in half a year! -- Slaunger19:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That's great! One final thing which I think might help, along the same lines. Could the text be changed on the thumbnail view from "VIC of:" to "Scope:", and in the large view from "Nominated as the most valued image on Wikimedia Commons of" to "Nominated as the most valued image on Wikimedia Commons within the scope:". In each case, perhaps with the word "scope" wikilinked to Commons:Valued image scope? --MichaelMaggs21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have created a small template of easy-access links called {{VIlinks}}. Can someone tell me how to add it to the top right of a page? I'd like to add it for example to the top right of Commons:Valued image scope in such a way that it appears to the right of the TOC (ie the template shouldn't just push the rest of the text down the page). --MichaelMaggs16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering what we should do with the test nominations, which have been test promoted according to current guidelines? Should we make them the first "real" VI/VISs? I think yes (excluding my own iceberg VISC - I do not want anyone to think I propose this because I want a nomination of mine to be one of the first). If we can agree on this, this image:
Commons:Valued images candidates/Manhattan Bridge Construction 1909.jpg
was the first VI, promoted 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC). I think it would be a worthy first VI.-- Slaunger20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid that a reset will be a turn-off. Although there has been some development in the guidelines during the test it seems to me that the VICs test promoted so far have been promoted based on arguments which are still valid within the context of the newest guideline. To avoid speculations that the test promotions are officially promoted because thereby the most active contributors to the dev of COM:VI (you and I, it seems) get their own material promoted, I suggest we reset our own contributions and let the other ones go through (a pragmatic approach). -- Slaunger15:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, as a last check I think I will just proactively ask other test nominators what they think about it. I feel two persons if too few to make this decision. -- Slaunger19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Keeping track of discussions
With the recent division of COM:VI and COM:VIC into several smaller and more maintainable subpages I was wondering how to keep track of the discussions? I am concerned that if users post individually on the subpages many VI stakeholders will not notice because, e.g, they do not have all the relevant subpages on their watchlist. Also some subpages are trancluded into others, which could cause further confusion regarding where to discuss VI/VIC. I would prefer if all discussions are undertaken on this main talk page. Would it be an option to redirect the talk pages of the subpages to this main talk page or are there better ways? -- Slaunger20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps proactively make a first post on the subpage discussion pages urging users to post here for maximum awareness/response? -- Slaunger20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. I actually think it can be done without breaking the functionality of the templates. I just made a quick check on the ones I think are relevant and these seem to be robust against the namespace used. -- Slaunger20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Category:Promoted valued images candidates is an "automatically" generated category to all the VIC subpages, which have status=promoted, so it gives a common entrance to all reviews, which have resulted in a promotion, alphabetized in accordance with the subpage name. With everything templated as we have, we actually have some additional possibilities for automatically generated categories, like Category:Valued images candidates by nominator, Category:Promoted valued images by scope, if we want to browse the candidates in certain ways. All this can be added as we go along by template tweaking using the fields in the nominations.
Category:Valued images are links to the actual image pages of promoted VIs. Images are automatically added to this cat when {{VI}} is placed on the image page. The latter cat will be the most used one, whereas the first is for more in-depth studies of statistics, double-cheking that all promotions have been finalized, etc. -- Slaunger20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the amount of work needed to review each nomination I think the original suggestion of 48 hour voting periods is too short, at least at the start. I would prefer to have 7 days, with a view to reducing this later. Keeping the MVR period at 14 days as previously discussed seems fine, for the start; or perhaps we could have 7 for that as well? The rules would then boil down to:
If only + votes, promote 7 days after the first vote
If only - votes, decline 7 days after the first vote
If both + and - votes, promote/decline based on majority 7 days after the last vote
MVR: promote/decline based on majority 7 days after the last vote.
Why 7 days after the last vote? It would be enough 7 days after the first vote plus 48 hours after the last vote -- Alvesgaspar19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, for MVR, what we discussed above was 14 days after the last competitive image was added. It would be nice and simple if we just had 7 days after the last image was added. --MichaelMaggs19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the 7 days rule proposed by Michael is fine as initial values and due to its simplicity. The review activity so far has been quite low (yeah I know we are testing so maybe not so interesting). Initially, I think it is important not to rush the promotions. Also I would suggest that by seven days we mean no sooner than seven days - because, initially, there will be no bot assistance. Furthermore I suggest, we do not strike votes initially (just because a review is late it can be just as meaningful) after the voting period under the clause that the last voter cannot close the nomination. Later, if/when activity raises we may make it more strict if we find this is appropriate.
I'm not talking about the MVR procedure but case #3. Suppose there is a picture with 5 support votes and another one with 5 support and 1 oppose votes. The first will be promoted not later than 7 days after the first vote; the second, at least 14 days after. That's why I'm suggesting to reduce the period after the last vote to 2 days. Alvesgaspar07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
at least 14 days is actually not always correct. For example, if the all the votes have been cast on day two, it will be a total of nine days, only two days longer than if you have a clean vote. If we were to close disputed candidates two days after the last vote, that could with the example I give be as low as four days, s´horter than the period for an undisputed vote. But you are right, that sometimes it can take quite a long time, just as at CR in QIC. Given that here we require a little more from a reviewer than just assessing an image but also the scope, I think we should give it a little time. Better make a right and slow decision than a hasty and wrong one. -- Slaunger19:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Alves, I did not read your proposal thoroughly enough. 7 days after the first vote plus 48 hours after the last vote does indeed give a minimum period of seven days and not less as I wrote above. -- Slaunger21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Could something like this be helpful to include in the review pages? (my first Inkscape image, w00t! Hmm, I had arrow on the lines between the boxes, I wonder where those went, and it seems badly cropped, anyway I think you know what I mean) -- Slaunger22:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I started to make a similar diagram, then decided that it makes things look even more complicated. I have described it now in words at the top of this project page. Is that clear enough? --MichaelMaggs10:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You may have a point that it looks complicated. Another objective for making the illustration is to illustrate how the value of the status parameter shall be changed as votes are added. This point seems to be forgotten by most test reviewers so far. Perhaps a simplified version of the diagram would be in order, where I remove all types of review commentsd which does not change the status. I could also split in in two parts. One dealing with reviewers changes between nominated, supported, opposed and discussed, and another one dealing woth the procedure used when closing the nomination, which includes the declined and promoted states. -- Slaunger19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
E.g., this simplified diagram could be added to each review page just to remind the reviewer of his responsibilty to update the status of the nomination when the users vote change the status. -- Slaunger20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to insist on this point but I really think the rule for case #3 will make some nominations to ethernize and the whole page to be crowded with useless entries. For the system to rum smoothly with a continuous flood of new nominations (this is everybody's wish) it should be more agile. Why should a nomination with 5 support votes to be treated so differently from another one with 5 support and 1 oppose votes? The first will be promoted in 7 days, the second might crawl in the page for a long time (especially if it is a good one new reviewers continue to support it). Let me propose an alternative:
If only + or - votes promote/decline 7 days after first vote.
If both + and - votes promote/decline 2 days after last vote (but not earlier than 7 days after first vote)
Nominations should stay no longer than 14 days. Nominations with no votes or equal number of + and - votes will not be promoted (but might be renominated). -- Alvesgaspar11:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think it is OK to insist if you really see a problem, and I see your point. May I come up with the following compromise proposal.
As you suggest. That is: Undisputed(?) nominations are promoted/declined 7 days after the first vote.
As you suggest with the following clarification. That is: Disputed nominations are promoted/declined two days after a majority vote, but no earlier than 7 days after the first vote
I'd like to split your rule 3 into two rules
Disputed nominations with no majority vote are kept open (at least two users have voted, so the subject has some interest). When a majority vote situation occurs, rule #2 applies.
Nominations with no votes, which has been inactive for 7 days (to take into account that some reviewers often ask the nominator to add further information or answer a question prior to voting) can be removed as unasessed nominations. An unasessed nomination can be renominated.
How about a Saturday at 18:00 UTC as a reasonable compromise between time zones of most active users. For instance, May 3, 2008? I think we have made quite good progress the last week or so, and as I see it it would be a realistic launch date. Other suggestions are wellcome. -- Slaunger20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps replace the written text in review instructions about status changes with this figure and than transclude it all as you suggest? -- Slaunger10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Done Ok, the entire review procedure is now transcluded into each and every review subpage. Concerning the nominated color, I will rather not change it as it matches the blue color used for a nominated candidate in thumbnail display (and also at QIC). What I perhaps could do is change the text color into something which gives better contrast, such as white or yellow or move the text out of the box. I am panning to use light blue for the unassessed state... -- Slaunger07:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
How do I get this template to use the standard VI colour? I'm uncertain of the syntax for adding background-color:#fdf4d8. --MichaelMaggs09:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone help in adding some white space between the text on the page and this right-justified table? It doesn't look that good to have the text pushing hard up against the left-hand border of the table, as on Commons:Valued images candidates/Review procedure and elsewhere. Perhaps a thin while column could be added to the left of the existing table, within the template? --MichaelMaggs09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You can define margins and padding like this. Padding is the distance between the text inside the table and the table border, margin is the distance between the text outside the table and the table border. The four values are for top, right, bottom and left, respectively. --rimshottalk16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It is suggested above, that nominations, which have been inactive for seven days shall be removed from the candidates list. In doing that I propose that the status is changed to a new unassessed state. Doing that will automatically associate the candidate page to a (yet to be created) category Category:Unassessed valued images candidates as a subcat to the existing Category:Valued images candidates. In addition, I also propose that all test candidates are reset to this state shortly before the grand opening. Users who want to renominate images with the official guidelines can then do that by changing the status to nominated and re-add it to the candidates list, when the show opens. Similarly with sets. Does that seem like a reasonable scheme. -- Slaunger14:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure; the same thing is done with QI and seems to work (though most of the time the proposers of said images give up and don't re-nominate them). Arria Belli | parlami15:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure about that. It will create a large and ever-increasing category, much of which will be images that actually have been assessed but have not been promoted. Why not just define a draw after say 14 days as being equal to a decline? The image can always be re-nominated later, after a suitable gap, as with existing FPCs. Re-noms ought to be allowed since an image may have been declined simply because it was not at the time geocoded, but that has since been done. --MichaelMaggs20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
All declined images go in the Category:Declined valued images candidates, so this one will get big too. I do not know if this is a problem though. This reminds we, these cats can be sorted by the date of nomination thus providing some structure in those large cats. However, that requires that we make a sligth change to the date of nomination format. Today it looks like, e.g. "10:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)", but this does not alfanumerically sort right. We could change the add nom preload template such that the automatically generated parameter gets the form "YYYY-MM-DD, hh:mm (UTC)", e.g., "2008-04-25, 20:20 (UTC)", if this is used as the sort key the newest unassessed/declined, etc will be last in the category. -- Slaunger06:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, based on the discussion below we ended up with an undecided state instead as disputed votes leading to a neutral result also ends up in this state, and these have, strictly speaking, been assessed. However, I will change the date format at the time of nomination to facilitate a more convenient sorting in the categories. -- Slaunger21:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now changed the date parameter format to YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm (UTC) for all current candidates, in the documentation and the preload templates. The format has the advantage that candidates can be sorted by time based on this parameter in categories. See also Template:VI-time. -- Slaunger23:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Helping nominators fix obvious issues
It's clear already that many nominators are going to ignore some of the criteria before nominating, for example by not bothering to geocode. I propose we have an easy way of telling the nominator that the image will inevitably fail in its present form, but that the error could be fixed. This will also allow reviewers to provide quick feedback on obvious issues without having to spend 15 minutes doing a full assessment of the image's value. Ideally of course some fully-argued rationale such as Slaunger has been providing to date would be wonderful, but in practice reviewers won't want to put that level of effort into (say) an image which is going to fail anyway unless the nominator adds a geocode. The idea is to encourage the nominator to get the easy stuff fixed early on. To that end, I've created a draft template {{VIX}}. Comments would be welcome (and some help in getting the Switch function to work, as I'm not very experienced at templates). --MichaelMaggs19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to make some helper templates for adressing frequently occurring issues, and something along the lines you have worked on seems appropriate. One thing which I do not like very much about such templates , c.f., {{FPX}} is that, unless thair content is very carefully considered they can easily be a turn-off to nominators who are new to the process (getting an unpersonal templated msg instead of just a comment fitted to the nominator). However, i can aslo see that it is just not realistic to carry on makiing in depth explanations of what is needed. I was wondering if it could be done without having the explicit Oppose in it. Perhaps On hold keeping it in the nominated state, where the nominator is given, e.g., two days to fix the obvious. I will think about it, and would be glad to help with the template logic after considering it a little. -- Slaunger07:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I had hoped to mitigate the oppose by the 'provisional' reference and the reassessment offer if a message is left on the talk page. Ultimately, failing any one of the criteria is a reason to decline, and it's just how best to put it. Some sort of on hold option would work, but would increase the complexity further. --MichaelMaggs08:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you sure have tried, but what happens when the nominator has fixed it, will you then strike out the provisional oppose and the template, as that seems a little ackward as well? The On hold does not have to add complexity IMO, a simple CommentOn hold. This image currently fails to meet the geocoding criteria, please geocode it, such that the review can continue.... is a relatively simple way to do it, which does not have to be changed afterwards except perhaps as a confirmation. -- Slaunger15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with On hold, if you think it's better. Either way, the comment will no doubt have to be struck out once the issue has been fixed. --MichaelMaggs19:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm yes, you are right it is basically the same. My point is really not a better solution than your suggestion. -- Slaunger20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting issue has come up in Commons:Valued images candidates/Britomart Outside Facade.jpg. I initially opposed based on another image within the scope that I thought better, but the nominator has correctly pointed out that that image would be ineligible for VI status as it is not geocoded. Should we decline an image for failing criterion 1 (most valuable) when the comparison itself fails criterion 5 (geocoding)? There are two possibilities:
(a) Yes, which implies that unless the comparison image can be fixed by adding a geocode, no image of that scope can be promoted; and
(b) No, which implies that we will often be promoting sub-standard images simply because none of the 'better' ones on Commons are geocoded. That will happen often since so few Commons images have geocoding, and could result in poor quality candidates being promoted (not this one I hasten to say), which will harm the prestige of the project.
Up until now, reviews have impliedly assumed we are working to (a), which would be my personal preference. It would be useful to discuss this, as it needs a sentence added to the review instructions either way. --MichaelMaggs08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Eeep, sorry - by all means discuss this, but I have now geocoded the image at issue! Sorry, I thought I had "fixed" all my nominations, but must have forgotten this one. Ingolfson11:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As regards the discussion, personally, I feel that images SHOULD be geocoded. In 95% of all cases at least a rough geocoding +/- 50 m should be very easy, unless the original contributor isn't around anymore. Ingolfson11:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... had to consider this for some time, but I am inclined to support you on the (a) interpretation. I had the same kinds of thought looking through different images of heads of dragonflies, finding that several of them were not geocoded. My reasoning is this. The non-geocoded competing image could in principle compete with it in an MVR. I would not support the poor quality but geocoded candidate as the other image is better, nor would I support the alternative due to its lack of geocoding, and according to the MVR promotion rules this leads to a decline for both. The only good thing I can think of regarding (b) is that it could encourage/motivate contributors of high value photos, with lousy image pages, no geocoding etc to do something about the image page, as it would be easy to get a VI in a MVR with the poor image after having fixed the image page. Having said all this it does not hurt to notify creators of competing material that they were eligible for VI status if they did their homework on the image page. -- Slaunger20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets play a game: Assume this photo is the most valued image within three scopes: 1. Saint Sava temple, 2. Orthodox Serbian Churces, 3. Buildings in Belgrade. Is such a tripple-VI status possible? I think yes. -- Slaunger20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion it should be possible for a single image to be VI within several scopes. Thoughts?
If yes, I think we need to add some specific details about "within the scope of nomination" when speaking of demoting in an MVR. Say if a more valued image of an orthodox Serbian church was found, I only think this image should be degraded to a double_VI within the scopes of "Saint Sava Temple" and "Buildings in Belgrade" and be a former-VI within the scope "Orthodox Serbian churches". -- Slaunger20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. In Commons:Valued image scope I have said "However there is no objection to a single image being nominated several times, each time for some distinct scope. One scope should not fall entirely within the other, though. For example a single image could be a VI for the two scopes "child" and "sleep", but not for the two scopes "lemon" and "fruit"." Does that cover it? Do you think any clearer wording is needed? --MichaelMaggs21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes almost, except that I actually think it is possible to be VI in both "lemon" and "fruit" (why not?). My example with the church is actually equivalent to the three scopes "lemon", "fruit", "bitter food" so to say. Having said that I believe we maybe should add another word of caution against the borad scopes stating that the broader the scope, the more subjective and less meaningful the review will be. Say, if you had a really valuable photo of "lemon" and you claimed it was also the most valuable of "fruit" you can easily image that other reviewers would find a nice photo of a banana claiming that is more vauable to them, or a collection of fruit as can be bought in a Western-European supermarket, until an Asian reviewer comes around claiming that a collection of furit available in, say, Thailand is more valuable. -- Slaunger04:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Overlapping scopes are fine ("lemon", "bitter food"), but I would avoid allowing a single image to have one VI scope entirely contained within another ("lemon", "fruit"). That would allow users to nominate scopes in such a way as to avoid any risk of having to compete in an MVR, and could mean multiple VIs for what is essentially one basic idea. It would make searching more difficult and confusing for users who want to look for content. You can also get inconsistencies. For example, let's say that an image is a VI within the two scopes "Saint Sava Temple" and "Orthodox Serbian churches". I later come along with a better image, and not wanting to be too bold nominate it for the scope "Saint Sava Temple". Since mine is better, I succeed. Now, we have a worse image that is a VI for the broader scope and a better one for the narrower scope. Actually, the better one should win both scopes, but in order to make that happen somebody needs to open a separate MVR, with yet another vote, when really we need only one. I can't see any reason, actually, why it would be useful to allow a single image have one scope entirely contained within another.
I do agree with your point about very broad scopes such as "fruit", and will add a sentence about that to the scope page. --MichaelMaggs17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I see two problems in the disallowance of two scopes, where one is a specialization of the other. Let us continue the example for a while.
If a a more valuable image of "Saint Sava temple" comes along and wins over this image in an MVR it does not mean necessairly that it would also automatically be considered the most valued image of "Orthodox Serbian Churches". The new image may be shot from another direction emphasizing better characteristics of the building which are inherent to this very building. However in doing that it may actually be worse at illustrating what is a typical Orthodox Serbian Church, so it does not automatically win over the original image within that scope.
Let us say the image here is "only" VI within the scope "Orthodox Serbian Churches". Then somebody nominates another (lousy) photo of Saint Sava Temple as the most valuable within the scope "Saint Sava Temple". Should this image then not be allowed to compete for VI status within this specific scope in an MVR? I think, yes, but with your suggested rule it will not be allowed to unless it is first demoted within the scope "Orthodox Serbian Churches". As I see it this will lead to some strange, artificial situations. -- Slaunger18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There are obviously disadvantages whichever option we choose, but your arguments are convincing. Let's do it the way you suggest. --MichaelMaggs05:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there could be some mentioning of that scope spamming is discouraged? I mean, in the following series of scopes: "lemon", "ripe lemon", "lemons from Brazil", "Uncut lemon", "Lemon depicted on a neutral background", "Photo of a lemon" only "lemon" makes sense as a scope. There should be a certain minimum difference between scopes. -- Slaunger07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There has not yet been much discussion about how to organize the VIs/VISs after promotions. I have some thoughts about this which i would like to hear your opinion about.
Requirements to the organization of VI/VISs
It shall be easy for Wikimedia project editors to find relevant valued content for their projects.
It shall be easy for VI nominators to find related VIs before nominating to get some input for making a good nomination
It shall be easy for VI reviewers to find related VIs during reviews to get input on what to look for and where the bar is.
It shall be easy for the VI nomination closers to check that everything was been done in accordance with procedures
It shall be easy for the Commons administrators to get an overview of all VIs and the project
It shall be easy to maintain the orginization.
A minimum of user resources shall be used on archiving.
Req. 1 Make it easy for WMF editor to find valuable content
I think there are several different editor behaviors which needs to be considered.
The local WMF editor
The local WMF editor is an editor who does not actively look for new material/better material on Commons, but will consider adding VI content to WMF project content pages if they stumble across it or is actively being notified about such content.
To address the needs of this type of editor one will have to push information to the editor somehow. How can this be done?
Publishing VI notices on relevant WMF foundation project content pages
In principle a notice can be published on relevant WMF project content pages telling that the Commons community has elected image foo as the most valued image within the scope asking the editors to consider using it.
I do not think this would be practical. It is beyond the capabilities of Commons users to find all relevant WMF project content pages on other WMF projects. And we cannot automate it in obvious ways using "where used" logic as there is only a limited value in telling WMF project content editors already using the image, that it is now a VI. Also such ways would probably be frowned upon from the other WMF projects and can be seen as infringement in their own judgement? The only case I see it can be of value is if a newly uploaded good image image wins over a previous VI within the same scope. In that case it could perhaps be relevant toplace an informative notice on WMF project content pages where the former VI was used telling that Commons has elected a new image as being the most valued within the scope.
Let Wikimedia SW automatically show a VI logo in conjunction with VIs
One idea, which I have seen another use mention somewhere is to have the Wikimedia software automatically show a small VI logo in conjunction with images shown in WMF project content pages. (The same goes for QI and FP material) as this will give a hint to readers and editors that this image is actually worth opening and seing in a resolution larger than thumbnail size. I do not know if this is possible, but it would be a general very nice feature, also for use in Commons galleries and cats when browsing in the conventional category content structure.
-- Slaunger06:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The WMF editor actively seeking valued project content media on Commons
There is a class of WMF project content editros who actively seeks for relevant/valued media on Commons when, e.g., creating new articles in a Wikipedia or when expanding an existing article. How do we best address their needs?
Editor uses existing category/galleries to find valued/relevant media
Quite often editors will search through the category/gallery best matching the WMF project content page they intend to create or edit. Here it will be advantageous if VIs are clearly marked such that they stand out (the same can be said about FPs and QIs for that matter).
The easiest way to accomplish this was if some business logic was implemented in the MediaWiki such that it automatically tagged VI content with the VI logo. Is that at all possible?
For galleries a seperate VI section could be made manually or bot assisted on the gallery corresponding best to the scope of nomination. More tedious than option 1, but doable with present features in the SW
For categories, I do not know what is best to do? One option is to make a valued image of ... Gallery page and associate it with the cat. But a gallery with only one image does not really make sense, does it? A VI gallery could also be inclined in the category, although that is a quite unusual way to use a category - it sort of mixes things up. Last a Valued image of subcat can be made. the nice thing about this is that it can be done from the image page only and then go to the new cat and associate it with the scope cat. The question is, if it is meaningful to have a cat with only one image?
A few days ago, I made an announcement about this project at Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates (the equivalent to COM:FPC on the English Wikipedia). Several Wikipedia users are in favor of setting up a related project on WP, dedicated to valuable encyclopedic images. Currently, there is an on-going and interesting discussion about the pros and cons of having separate projects vs. merging the efforts into a single project. If you have an opinion about that I urge you to voice your opinion in that thread. -- Slaunger10:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A Valued Picture Proposal has such been published there. I have written a lenghty respose to the proposal. If you have any comments to the proposed related project on WP do go there and voice your opinion. -- Slaunger21:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Several users have approached me to ask when VI will be officially released. Unfortunately, I do not know! The reason is that there are several open issues, which IMO needs to be closed. Lately, I have felt this project is becoming more and more a one-man show, as I very seldomly get any response on the open issues I have posted and for which I seek input, opinions and advice. I very much need some other users helping me finalizing the roll-out and settling the last remaining issues. Although I could simply dictate how the remaining issues should be dealt with, I'd rather avoid that for several reasons
I am not sure what the best solution is.
I am concerned that we will not get an optimal setup based on broad consensus in the community.
I am concerned that I do not have enough personal resources to keep this project going alone, when it comes to handling nominations, etc.
In my opinion it is vital to transfer ownership and responsibility to other users to get a dynamic project, which best suit Commons and Commons repository users.
To summarize, here are the most important open issues in no particular order
Another nice set of proposals, thank you, LadyofHats! Some general remarks. I think that spelling out "Valued image" in the logo is too verbose/detailed. The logo will most often be displayed in a template-context on an image page with an accompanying text, which will spell out "Valued Image" woith an appropriate link. Thus I see the spelled out text in some of the proposals as an unnecessary detail. Another use case for the logo will be in very small size, like 15px or 20px for image tagging in galleries. Here the text will be so small that it cannot be seen. Better would be "VI" as the acronym for a "Valued Image" and "VIS" as the acronym for "Valued Image Set". Even simpler just "V" for a common logo dealing with both individual images and sets. There are some versions with "Vi" in it. My personal preference is to have all letters a capital letters as that is also what you have in an acronym. By filtering the proposals in accordance with those initial remarks I see the following candidates
Upper left: Could be improved by removing the "Valued Image" text. I am a little bit unsure about the stars. They look nice but are they there for a specific reason and do they add meaning to the logo? Maybe they could be omitted as well? Could be made into a common logo for the project as such embracing both VIs and VISs.
Lower middle: Is recogniceable in small size. I'd make the height of the "V" and "I" letters such that they are identical. Maybe the letters should be filled and not outlined?
Lower right: This one looks great as is (and it is my favorite) although it does not have any letters incorporated. Perhaps we should start out by a "bronze" version and then reserve this gold (and a possible silver) version here for future use. There has been some thoughts about later introducing more levels of value according to, e.g., cross-project usage or for images being the most valued witin several different scopes.
Finally, I would just like to repeat that this is great work and with a few final adjustments we could have a perfect logo for the valued image project. -- Slaunger09:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, great work! I really like most of the propositions. I like some more than others, though: In general, I prefer the seal-like form of the two upper rows to the less-defined form of the lower row, because it looks more "official. The middle row versions are fine, but a bit too complex for my taste. So, my favorite is the general form of the upper row. Within the upper row, the most suitable one is the left logo, I think. It looks great as it is now, but I think it could be improved to make the V more visible: (1) it should have a more striking color, for example a darker blue; (2) It could be made larger, like the version on the right (but without changing the typeface). With those changes, I think that the logo will be instantly recognizable even in a very small version. I don't mind the "valued image" text, but omitting it would leave more room to expand the V to. --rimshottalk 11:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC) PS: If that wasn't clear from these remarks: I don't think a separate logo is needed for VI's and VIS's, unless, of course, the text "valued image" stays in the logo. --rimshottalk11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I looked at these for awhile and it's hard to pick a favorite, but there's something about the bottom middle that I keep coming back to. It thinks it's the most elegant of all the designs. However, I'm not sure how it will work as a logo. I think the upper row's form is more suitable for a logo. Out of those I would say the first one is the best. The second is alright too, but I don't like the lower case 'i'. Also, it looks too much like a sun at smaller sizes. But whatever one is choosen, we got a nice logo. Rocket00011:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
To summarize so far: Although there are some differences in the opinions, the upper left logo (perhaps in in simplified form) is mentioned by all reviewers. -- Slaunger12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the upper left logo is very good (and clear at 15px). The second-clearest logo (full size and at 15px) seems to be the second from the left in the middle row (but then again, I'm partial to blue, it being my favorite color). All in all, some very good images and ideas. Thank you, LadyofHats! Arria Belli | parlami13:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hats off for the lady. As logo, the upper left with a simplified background and the V a bit more left centered. --Foroa14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely the logo should, as a principle, avoid words and initials so as to be language-neutral for use in a multilingual project? Man vyi15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The official VI logo
I like the upper left as well, preferably without the text as this is a multilingual project project. I do, though, think we must have a separate logo for use on the individual images of a Valued Image Set since otherwise we will be implying that each image of such a set has met the valued image criteria in its own right, which of course will not normally be the case. Could we just have a small lower-case letter 's' to the right of the V for the Set logo? --MichaelMaggs16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
An alternative solution for the sets could be to generate a stack of - say - three VI logos as the VIS logo. That is visually clear "multiple" sign independent of language. -- Slaunger17:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite a few good designs, but I like most top row second from left because of its clarity. Top left might have a slight edge regarding the sun rim shading, but the lettering might be unreadable at smaller size. Personally, I'd prefer not to have the slur in the background, but that is a matter of personal taste. -- Klaus with K21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The template {{VIC-candidate-images}} introduces some extra line breaks in the display of the VICs. This is annoying. Currently, the template is truncated, such that it will not accept very many images in its parameter list. this is to minimize the problems with the extra linebreaks. A more elegant solution would be nice.
For consistency, a {{VISC-candidate-sets}} template should be made for listing the VISCs. Currently, the VISCs are transcluded into the page. This works OK, but is inconsistent with the procedure for adding a VIC nomination
If we decide for having a Most Valued Review process (see above), we need some way to display the images competing for VI status side by side in a comparative review. the simplest way to do this is perhaps to create a Most Valued Review section and then create a subsection for each MVR with the scope of the MVR as the subsection title. The images competing for VI status within the scope could then be shown side-by-side using {{VIC-candidate-images}} as for displaying the normal VICs. This would give a review field for each image, which reviewers can add their review comments to. Would that be a way ahead?
The Most Valued Review is a very elegant idea, I like it a lot. But I don't think it is necessary to have parallel boxes and votings. One box should be enough with the two pictures side by side and votes like "keep" and "replace" -- Alvesgaspar22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that you find that MVR is an elegant idea and I am please to see some input on this. I am, too, a little bit torn about the presentation and agree somehow that having only a single review box is the best. Or, at least that was my initial impression. However, after having toyed around with a single box concept, I have not yet found a good way to present the reviews in a manner which takes the following points into account
Has to work for more than two competing images
No fuzziness in the interpretation of the final result
Has to take into account that one of the images in the review may be a VI already or not
Have the ability to see each individual image in review size (is that not a must?)
The barrier for moving an image to MVR shall preferably be as low as possible. That is a minimum of moving around. Ideally I would have liked it to be done in situ, but I do not see that is possible.
The one-review-box-per-nomination MVR solution seems to fulfill the points mentioned above, although it has the drawback you mention.
There is a simple two-image MVR on apartheid presented on the candidates page. It would be really neat if you could come up with a single rerview box solution example for that MVR, to see more specifically what you have in mind. -- Slaunger21:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought that the MVR process would only be used when a challenger appears to replace the existing VI. Alvesgaspar22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we could change into that. I just thought it would often occur that during a VI review, a reviewer will claim that another image is more vaulable within the same scope. Thus, I could see at as a handy way to resolve that, i.e., move the original VIC to an MVR competing with the alternative(s). -- Slaunger10:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose the following rules for evaluating the result of an MVR.
The MVR ends no sooner than n days after the last image has been added to the MVR. (In the beginning n could be 14 days and decreasing as activities goes up)
For each image in the MVR #support-#oppose is evaluated. If more than one image gets the same score the review stays open.
The image with the highest score after the review period is identified.This image is called the Most Valued Image Candidate (MVIC).
For all other images (typically just one) in the MVR, it is investigated if it is already a VI within the same scope. If yes, the {{VI}} tag on the image page is replaced by a {{VI-former}} template.
If the MVRC has more support than oppose votes, the image is promoted to VI within the stated scope (unless it is already a VI within this scope).
Note, that if the MVRC is a VI within the same scope and (#support-#oppose)>=0 nothing happens. This is a way of rephrasing the original Once a VI, always a VI proposal into Once a VI, always a VI, unless something better comes by.
Unless I've misunderstood something, a MVR takes place only when two (or more) images have to be compared to decide which is to be the approved VI for a particular scope. By definition, the scope being considered will be the same for each of the images within the review. The above rules could therefore perhaps be simplified as follows:
An MVR may be opened when there are two or more candidates for VI having the same scope.
The MVR ends no sooner than 14 days after the last image has been added to the MVR. (The period could be decreased later, if activities go up).
For each image, #support-#oppose is evaluated. If more than one candidate gets the same score the review stays open.
The image with the highest score after the review period is selected or retained as the VI for that scope, provided it has more support than oppose votes.
Yes, you are right. Your simplified version grasps it all and it it is simpler and more concise. I think we should insert that formulation in the guideline for now. -- Slaunger19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now added a Most Valued Review section on the main page replicating the voting rules above and also staing how to move a condidate to MVR. One thing that came to mind whilst doing that: If a new candidate is competing with an existing VI, that VI will always have a VIC subpage with the original review of that image within the same scope. How shall we deal with the votes from the original nomination. My immediate thought is that the original review page shall be reopened and the "old votes" shall count and new votes can be added. This also makes it a little harder to demote an existing VI as it already will have a head start (at least one more support than oppose votes). -- Slaunger20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not at all sure about that. In my view it would be better to re-start the voting from scratch, as is already done for current FP demotions. The reason is that if the existing VI is more than a few months old, many of the original voters will have drifted away and their vote will therefore become effectively a permanent support vote which can never be changed, even though that vote was made some time ago and without the benefit of having a side-by-side comparison of the existing image with the proposed new one. I think that demotion should be based on the current voters' views, not on the outdated views of previous voters. --MichaelMaggs17:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
How about reusing the existing VIC subpage, reset the voting but keep old reviews there. Some remarks in the old reviews may still be valuable to new reviewers. In that manner we avoid having several VIC subpages per image per scope, which would be confusing. -- Slaunger19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Once the VI logo has been established, a {{VI}} template shall be defined for tagging the image page of promoted VI images. The VI shall incorporate the VI logo, link to the yet-to-be-defined Commons:Valued images page, and link to the original nomination.
Yes, it looks good. Do you have the VIS logo to use as the basis for the VIS template? Was Lady of Hats going to make one according to your suggestion of 3 overlapping seals? --MichaelMaggs16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not have the guts to ask the Lady for yet another favor after four iterations of logo proposals. I guess, someone (not me) will have to make a stacked logo version for VIS based on the VI logo. -- Slaunger19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If an existing VI is demoted in a Most Valued Review, a {{VI-former}} template shall be defined, as a discrete template which refers to both the original VI nomination as well as the MVR which led to the demoting.
VIS template
Once a VISC has been promoted to a Valued Image Set (VIS), each image in the set shall be tagged by a yet-to-be-defined {{VISC}} template. The template shall refer to a yet-to-be-defined Commons:Valued Image Sets page as well as the original image.
VICBot
The project could benefit from having a bot to assist with closing nominations, tagging VI/VISs, etc.
Shall promoted test candidates be promoted to official VIs?
Some questions have been raised concerning Voting and promoting. See here. Input from other users are requested!
Display of nominations
I have recently changed the layout of the way nominations are displayed on the nomination page, see here. I seek feedback on this issue.
How to organize VI/VISs
An important purpose of the project is to identify valued material for use by Wikimedia project editors using Commons as a media repository. After promotion, how shall we organize the VI/VISs. I suggest some kind of VI sub-categorization within the normal Commons categories supplemented by an association to Category:Valued images/Category:Valued image sets. But what do you think?
I've no idea how to do this, but what would be really helpful for an editor wanting identify valued material would be some way of browsing through the VI scopes. --MichaelMaggs21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable idea. I guess some trade-offs between maintenance effort and useability has to be found. Whatever we come up with it is best if it can be bot-automated as we go along. An alfabetized list of scopes linking to the images / a gallery with the scopes as captions could be maintained by a bot I guess? -- Slaunger21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Changes in scope
Some unresolved issues are discussed here. Input is requested to solve this non-trivial issue.
I suggest we make it clear that the nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a comment to that effect and should leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not to be counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards. --MichaelMaggs16:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite often users volunteer to improve a nomination by making an edit and upload it under a new name. However, the functionality of, e.g., the {{VIC-thumb}} template is broken if the image name in a nomination subpage is changed as it is a prerequisite for the proper operation of te thumb template that the image name is the same as the sub page. This means one has to restart the nomination on a new subpage. The nice thing about this is that it automatically resets the votes. the drawback is that it is tedious. What to do?
Pheeeww, that's all for now. This list is not complete, but covers the most of what is lacking. Please help. -- Slaunger22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm.. It is always good to sleep... I came to think of another solution. I simply think I will add yet another field called subpage to the {{VIC-thumb}} template and let the link from the nominations page to the review page utilize that parameter to generate the link. In addition I think I will add that same parameter to {{VIC-nom-preload}}, which is preloaded on the nominations page, such that it gets an initial value, where subpage=image. Later, if the image is replaced by an edit, and the nomination can continue without resetting votes, the image parameter is simply changed to to the new file name. Does that sound like a reasonable solution. This will also give a possible solution to the case where previous VIC within some scope is nominated for VI within a new scope as that requires a new review subpage. By removing the constraint that the subpagename has to equal the image name, we avoid subpage name conflicts. -- Slaunger21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Done by doing the following
Add subpage=image name in all VIC subpages
Updated {{VIC-thumb}} to utilize the new subpage parameter for linking to the VIC subpage
Updated {{VIC-nom-preload}} such that a new nomination page is preloaded with a meaningful initial default value of the new subpage parameter
Updated {{VIC-add-nomination}} which is an instruction to the user when filling in the needed parameters in a newly created VIC subpage.
Done by Dschwen several weeks ago. -- Slaunger 09:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Scope Changed on 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC) to New Scope from Old Scope
Comment On hold. This image currently fails to meet the geocoding criteria, please geocode it, such that the review can continue.... is a relatively simple way to do it, which does not have to be changed afterwards except perhaps as a confirmation. -- Slaunger 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
