Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list
| This talk page is automatically archived by ArchiveBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Best scope for museum antique restorer at work[edit]
I consider nominating this image. Some categories in Commons are in need of serious rethinking and maintenance, so there are certain subjects that have no perfect category. This image is in the Category:Furniture restoration, but I'm not so sure whether mirror is furniture. Should I use "Antique restoration" as scope? There is no such category AFAIK. There is also Category:Restorers which would probably benefit from some dilution. Anyway, in Category:Furniture restoration I think it's the only eligible image showing person at work. - Tupungato (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Best scope for vineyard irrigation sprinklers in Italy[edit]
This image is used in 23 Wiki pages. I think it might be best in a few scopes.
- Irrigation in Category:Vineyards in Trentino-South Tyrol - wouldn't this be too narrow?
- Irrigation sprinklers in Category:Vineyards in Italy - I would consider this a good scope. It's a useful image and probably only of this scope in category tree of 600+ files, but there are many subcategories to inspect to properly review whether it's best in scope.
- Irrigation sprinklers in vineyards - no such category, but also probably best in scope. There are a few files imported from Flickr that are also in this scope. I would say it's a useful file in good scope, but as there is no such category, it's difficult to properly review whether it's best in scope.
Tupungato (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Pending Most Valued Review Candidates[edit]
More participation in Pending Most Valued Review Candidates is needed. Some candidates have to wait many months for a decision. --Milseburg (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Removal of an image and a more general problem[edit]
Hello everyone. Since I couldn't find a clear procedure for proposing the removal of a photograph from the list, I'm writing here. Thanks to anyone willing to partecipate to this discussion. The particular case I will describe here, also vividly illustrates a larger issue, namely the very low participation in procedures, which results in some photos being passed off as "quality" without any real evaluation beyond one or two users at most. In this case, however, I'm referring to the image File:Banca Carige Piazza Ferrari Genoa Italy Sep23 A7C 06610.jpg. The most ironic thing is that this image was labeled as quality for the topic "Banca Carige, Piazza Raffaele de Ferrari, Genoa". But the photograph does not depict "Banca Carige, Piazza Raffaele de Ferrari, Genoa". It's only a building with a Banca Carige advertising sign above! That is the building of the Genoa Stock Exchange, for which there are many other photos of equal, if not superior, quality (see Category:Genoa Stock Exchange). Obviously, the image should be removed at least from those concerning Banca Carige. Please note that this is not an isolated case; not long ago, I came across an image in violation of copyright that had been evaluated as "of quality" (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Info Chiostro Sant Andrea Genoa Sep23 R16 07474.jpg). And these are just cases I've seen because I'm familiar with the topic. In short, we should probably discuss how to deal with this issue: perhaps we could establish a limit of 3 participants for evaluating an image as "quality". Does it seem a good idea? Pros and cons? --teatroge (dm) 04:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- VI is a very demanding label, much more than the other two. Its complexity explains the problem of voting. If you find any errors, contact the author directly to discuss them with him. Another possibility is to ask an administrator.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)