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.
I'm struggling with if I should nominate this image Red Fort drawing for a VI.
What I'm thinking of is that there are of course photographs of the Red Fort Category:Red_Fortwhich is a whole other story compared with the layout drawing. So to me it's not a VI compared to photographs, but maybe it could be in perspective of layout?
Does any one more experienced around this have any idea how to act. Is it possible to narrow down the scope to "layout illustrations of the Red Fort" or is that to narrow? Any thinking or help is appreciated, thanks. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Bug in the VI BOT
I recently submitted this image as a VI. A few hours ago I received this message telling me that my submission had been successful. While I am quite happy to accept the BOT's verdict, I had actually withdrawn my submission follwoing a long discussion about the validity of the scope. I was planning a resubmission with a clean scope in the next day or two. Will someone please check why the BOT promoted an image that had been withdrawn? Martinvl (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This problem is very old. It is requested to mark them as declined but this does not work either. It would be good to give up withdrawn unless one of us knows how to restart it.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! Fix was pretty simple - the bot didn't know how to handle the 'withdrawn' state and ended up falling through to treating it as 'successful'. I've tweaked it to handle withdrawn the same way it handles 'undecided' and 'failed'. Should be all better now, feel free to ping if you have any issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
According to COM:VIC an image "can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR". But it's not the first time I see valued images that are in an incorrect scope - for example incorrectly identified organisms like this one File:Dicranocephalus_sp._MHNT.jpg. It was voted for the scope "Dicranocephalus albipes dorsal view" but it's not in that scope because it's a different species. Obviously they should be demoted in the given scope. What's the procedure for that? --Exonie (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
On 5 April 2018, this file was marked for promotion. It appears that the promotion process never took place. Will someone please complete it for me? Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Martinvl, it's a long time since I've done one, but I think I've done it for you. Please check that it's ok as the process may have changed in the meantime. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
for categorizing of the Recently promoted Valued images into the appropriate galleries urgently help is needed. As of today, this gallery is hopelessly overcrowded with more than 4400 entries, so an error like this one might happen soon: Unstrip size limit exceeded. This may cause the VIC bot to fail, similar to the QIC bot a few months ago. Therefore I ask all active users to help with the categorization according to the written scope.
I've just read this post. Undertaking this work would be very time consuming and the galleries add no value I'm afraid. I moved my VI Jerdon's bushlark into life forms/animals/birds and the gallery is completely useless! This is how Category:Valued images by Charlesjsharp|I catagorize my own images and this is the only structure that I know that makes any sense. Any thoughts? Categories allow me to use cat-a-lot which is the only way to sort large numbers of images. @Archaeodontosaurus: will have a view on what to do. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
You have to categorize them one by one, I've already done quite a few, but other competitors also have to be sure to give their help. It's not difficult.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Dear Wiki colleagues, in the last weeks Archaeodontosaurus and me have sorted a large part of the entries to the appropriate galleries. As a result, we now have only about 1750 entries on the page. This reduces the risk of a bot failure for now. Nevertheless, all participating authors are welcome to contribute to this maintenance work. Regards and all the best :) -- Radomianin (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I've just had a look at the rules. Far too complicated. Can the process be simplified/automated? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Do we have anyone with some 'coding' expertise? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
VIC is usually a pleasant place to nominate and vote on VICs. This user, however, has been offensive to many users. Before making a formal complaint about him I would like to find out whether I am alone in wanting to find a way to make him improve his manners. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
It does seem like Spurzem... does not take criticism or disagreement well. But I can't help but notice that most of the times I've seen Spurzem lashing out at someone, it's been related to scope, which is a frequent topic of confusion for me (and some others). Sometimes Spurzem nominates images with intricately descriptive scopes (there's the "dog wearing doggles in a cabriolet" example, but there's also e.g. a specific view of a specific stairway of a notable place, taken in a specific year, which isn't used in any Wikimedia project). Many of them could probably still be VIs with a more reasonable scope, but when people suggest narrowing, Spurzem will doesn't seem receptive. This isn't an issue specific to Spurzem, though. After all, other users are needed to promote such candidates. The wild variation on what people consider a reasonable scope is the main reason I don't volunteer at VIC more. Sometimes it seems like absolutely any image can be VI if you just include enough variables; other times it must only include fundamentals. Or perhaps if you just attack those who disagree, fewer will dare to do so. — Rhododendritestalk | 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC) Copyedit after edit conflict — Rhododendritestalk | 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel the harassment and hatred of a few people almost every day. And these people now want to complain when I react to their attacks. It's incredible. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that I hate you? Because I think the only time we've interacted beyond a simple review is here. It is true that that discussion, where you used a scope of "Schoolgirl doing fast writing training at the ball head typewriter IBM 72 around 1975" and did not want to change it, may have made it more likely that I will see issues with your other scopes, but I certainly don't hate you. To the contrary, I think you do a lot of extremely valuable work -- I just think you shouldn't respond so harshly to people who don't agree with your scoping. — Rhododendritestalk | 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Rhododendrites, I wrote about "some people", not you. I no longer remembered the photo of the girl at IBM, who apparently was also declared worthless. It annoys me immensely when really rare and interesting photos are devalued as useless because some self-declared speakers doesn't like the description. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I will just say that seeing disagreement about your chosen scope as "devaluating photos as useless" is the issue. That photo was promoted, after all! There, as elsewhere, the problem isn't that it's a bad photo; the problem is your VIC nomination and responses to people who disagreed with your scope. It took someone else going in an changing the scope to get people to approve it... but people did promote it (myself included). But here we are, after the fact, and you're presenting it like a bunch of idiots dared to attacked a photo when their only issue was your nomination of that photo (something easily fixable, in that case). — Rhododendritestalk | 21:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't need the friendliness of Charlesjsharp and the others two or three, and I might live a while longer without the goodwill of these gentlemen. I'm 80 now, and unfortunately the matter will soon take care of itself. It's a pity that I don't see who then has to endure their harassment. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment useful to a project in which we believe. Avoid each other for a while, this should calm the debate. If you believe that age makes us wiser, it's not true at all... Get used to it because we're going to stay another 20 years . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment You would not be the only one complaining about his behavior, but there really are only two alternatives that I see: Either we complain about his behavior and ask for him to be blocked or we tolerate an unlimited amount of abuse from him because he is a really great provider of VIs. In spite of that, I would certainly support a complaint, because he seems incapable of accepting that rejecting a photo as a VI because the scope might not make sense or it is not best in scope makes it "worthless", and everyone who doesn't agree with him all the time is victimizing him. But this is a sad case because he produces such wonderful work and somehow is so sensitive about any kind of argument, not only in his nominations but in whichever others he chooses to identify with, except those which he rejects. Of course it's OK for him to reject some nominations, as note his vociferous objections to many car photos nominated at COM:QIC, and I'm not saying he doesn't have a point in those arguments, but... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment I support Archaeo's opinion, "Avoid each other for a while, this should calm the debate." There are so many other nominations, QI included, that one can discuss, oppose or support. That's probably much easier than changing someone's behaviour. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment It's fine if we decide to tolerate his behavior because he is a valuable contributor, but I think if that's the decision, we should acknowledge that we're enabling abusive behavior in exchange for great VIs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment This not him and me. He insults many users and it should not be tolerated. If he carries on insulting contributors then VI would be a better place without him. If he changes his behaviour then his valuable contributions will be very welcome. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment Given the number of times Spurzem has unleashed a tirade against anyone who disagrees with him (see Rhododendrites above in case you have forgotten), I favor a formal complaint of abusive behavior and a block on his participation in the VI forum. If you are an optimist and believe in personal redemption, a period of at least two months seems about right.
Photographers participate in Commons Valued Image for many reasons. For Spurzem, it is about power. These tirades work for him because he always gets what he wants and there are no consequences. It even works in the future. You pause any time you consider an oppose on one of his images, or even making a suggestion, because you know his tirade of abuse and personal victimization is coming.
Spurzem has made several good VI contributions in the past, but he is not unique. He does not merit exemption from the norms of collegial behavior and rules of nominating and voting on VICs that apply to all who participate at the Commons Valued Image forum. Trust the Commons VI system that more valuable images will show up from others if the forum is a healthy forum to participate in. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, go ahead and start a thread at ANU or whatever the page's name is, and link it here. You'll have supporters. The others can try to argue disingenuously that this involves you only, but that argument won't stick, and otherwise, they can claim that Spurzem's work is so good that we should have a double standard of acceptable behavior just for him. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
New milestone: 50,000 images candidates
50,000 valued images candidates on 1st December 2022.
Today, we reached 50,000 closed valued images candidates. Thanks to everyone who participates in the nomination and evaluation process! Skimel (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that MVR is working properly. I proposed this image to replace the current VI. The new one got one vote, but the original one was promoted again despite getting no new votes and now has two VIs! Can anyone help please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Proper scope for hot air balloons
I see, that this topic was discussed several times. I think that hot air balloons should have individual VI scopes. I see the following reasons:
We have scope for particular house and particular ship. Even for front view or side view of a house or a ship. But there are not too many balloons nowadays. I do not have exact statistical figures, but I think there are more houses and more ships than hot air balloons. And checking the categories for ships, houses and hot air balloons we can easily find that in Wikimedia Commons we have significantly less images of hot air balloons than images of buildings or images of ships. Like ships and houses, most of hot air balloons are unique, and most of the others are produced in very small series. And we have VI scope for every serial ship without any problem. For example, this is the valued image of serial ship Ship Moskva-21.
In our category tree for hot air balloons the next level after particular balloon is usually something like Hot air balloons of the United Kingdom. Are we ready to check all the subcategories of such wide category to choose the best photo of a balloon from UK for example? I don't think so. But it means that there is no chance to have valued image of hot air balloon at all.
On the other hand I do not see any disadvantages for Wikimedia Commons if we have VIs for every balloon like we already do for ships. IMO VIs work in two ways: as a guide to hint Wikipedian editors which images are the best to illustrate some subject and as a sign of appreciation for the good work for their creators. And in both ways having scopes for particular balloon will work for good. People will be more motivated to take photographs of balloons and editors will use better pictures as illustrations.
@Charlesjsharp:
-- LexKurochkin (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I have a very different view. Getting a VI awarded can mean a lot of work. For some common animals I have to look through 400+ images; I have to check where the photo was taken and often identify the subspecies. The images may sit in many categories as there is no category discipline enforced on Commons. VIs are actually most useful in two ways: 'which is the best image?' when Commons has hundreds and 'Do we have an image of this variety?' for rare animals. By clicking on the 'good images' any user can quickly find the most valuable image (as well as quality images and featured images which may not be seen as most valuable.
I believe we allow scopes of too many unlisted buildings. We shouldn't have separate scopes for ships/boats/yachts if they are of identical design unless they are particularly notable. So if your example Moskva-231 is a unique design, it should have a unique scope. If it is a standard riverboat design, then there should be one scope for the design. Let's look at an aircraft example -say the Cessna Citation Mustang. There could be several relevant scopes for this aircraft - front and rear, engine, interior, cockpit like for car scopes. If there are different models than the standard 510, then they could have there own scopes. But we would not have scopes for all 400+ individual aircraft or different colours/livery or ones in specific countries. [ps I don't think VI status is designed to be "a sign of appreciation for the good work for their creators". Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Charles in regard to balloons. If they are not recognizably different, why should they have separate scopes? Because they are painted differently or something? (We part company to a large extent in regard to buildings, because they are usually recognizably different.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
On the buildings, we ignore the scope guidlelines: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason..." Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Any balloon that is notably distinct in its appearance would make sense to have its own scope, I imagine. As for buildings, it would be much better to have new guidelines as a result of discussion than ignore the existing guidelines, but whenever I've tried to enforce rules or insist on changing them through specific new language, I've been vociferously overruled. So VIC will continue to run based on unwritten customs for at least the medium-term future. But as you may have guessed, I don't agree with a cramped view of what buildings can have useful scopes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
see current VI: Free Balloon HG 600 is a good scope. But you need to create category:Free Balloon HG 600 within category:Cameroon balloons. The specific balloon category should be under the Free Balloon HG 600 category. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Sorry, but I see big problems with this scope. How many images of French hot air balloons did you checked before voting for this one as the best for the type? Are you able to identify hot air balloon of this type among all other hot air balloons? To make decision about VI for the whole type, even in France only (as it was in the nomination), the answer should be: "Yes, I can identify this type and I have checked all the images of French hot air balloons to find balloons of this type". Hot air balloons are not categorized by type, this work not even started, and I doubt if it will start some day, because only a few photographers can identify type of a hot air balloon, and in many countries information about balloon type cannot be easily retrieved by checking its registration number. I tried to find this information for several balloons before writing this post and failed. And, as there is no categories for the balloon type, every VIC nomination with type-aligned scope will mean enormous effort of checking all the balloon images (many thousands) by an expert capable to identify the type just visually, without any hints. I consider this approach unrealistic. Nobody will do so.
The scopes by Vrije model type are good, but you are quite right that I didn't check any other balloon images. I was just trying to be helpful, but have withdrawn my support votes. Those who want VIs of balloons will have to do all the hard work, otherwise we won't have any balloon VIs. If the balloon type cannot be identified then the image is of no value to Commons or other wikis. Research will surely reveal the type of every balloon with a known number. There are 30,000 bird species and subspecies and we take the trouble to identify them. I suspect there are not as many balloon types. It takes a long time to identify some birds, but that is the whole point of Commons and the other wikis - contributing valuable images. No id = no value. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure if someone even start this work some day. There are too few experts in this field. That's why I was so supportive on having VI scope for particular balloon. LexKurochkin (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
due to an apparent VIC bot malfunction, I posted a message on the maintainer's discussion page. But since this page here seems to be more frequented, I link to that message it is about.
I am trying to add my file "File:Iron Bark Creek, Wallsend.jpg" to Valued image candidates. I don't think I'm adding it correctly. I have added this to QIC and the monthly competition. Any help would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Read the recommendations and get started! I'll correct your mistakes if you make any, it's a bit complicated at first but you're welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This image was promoted in 2020, but doesn't have the valued template and category. As far as I remember, normally it happened automatically? Should I try to do it by hand, or is there a procedure?
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)
Done Martinvl (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment useful to a project in which we believe. Avoid each other for a while, this should calm the debate. If you believe that age makes us wiser, it's not true at all... Get used to it because we're going to stay another 20 years 
. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC).png)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Ng_Eng_Teng,_NUS_Museum_(113216).jpg){kind=link}
_02.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_female_Cu.JPG){kind=link}
_Los_Tarrales.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Ng_Eng_Teng,_NUS_Museum_(113216).jpg){kind=link}
,_Ng_Eng_Teng,_NUS_Museum_(113216).jpg){kind=link}
_02.JPG){kind=link}
_02.JPG){kind=link}
