Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

VP Templates

I have changed the colour of the Promoted and Uploaded VP templates from green to pirple to differentiate between FPC templates and these ones. Muhammad(talk) 06:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. It is best to differentiate as much as possible between the two projects, so as to avoid confusion amongst users. Elucidate (light up) 20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

I promoted File:Einstein gyro gravity probe b.jpg, but the Wikipedia page was deleted on Dec. 15. Do I recreate it to add the ValuedPicture tag? Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be the best course. For what reason was it deleted? I have very limited time and internet access at present, so I will be unable to look into the matter. Elucidate (light up) 19:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused, are we storing duplicate copies of images here on enwiki so we can add our template? Fletcher (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they are duplicate images. The image page is created and the vpc template is inserted just like it is done at FPC. At least I think so. Muhammad(talk) 11:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The procedure is accepted at FPC, and I myself have had to recreate previously deleted image pages before, to put the FP template on. I'm sure its fine, but I'll look into it. Elucidate (light up) 17:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I get it. The image and description come from Commons but the final page displayed is somehow combined with the enwiki page. Fletcher (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Bingo! The enwiki image page only exists to hold extra information specific to enwiki, such as FP status or special licensing. Other than that it just loads up the commons image page, complete with description. BTW, did you ever recreate the image page, because that image doesn't say it's a VP? --jjron (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the only one I've done so far is the Summer Glau nomination and yes, I did have to create the image page to add the VP candidate template. For a moment I was worried I was going to break the image somehow, as the instructions did not say anything about creating a page. But after seeing how some others were done, I went ahead and it worked fine. Fletcher (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I recreated the page and added the VP template. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Closure directions

I added the following sentence to the closing procedure for promoted images: 

Update the number of Valued Pictures at Wikipedia:Valued pictures - in the sentence There are currently X valued pictures."

The number isn't updated any other way right now. If you wanna tweak that wording, go right ahead. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The FP instructions aren't so explicit, but we can probably simplify this too when it's a little more obvious what to do. --jjron (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Speedy Close

Please see my comments on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/House gecko scan. Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Great. Thanks for starting a discussion on this. So the question is... Can an image be valid for nomination if it has been in an article for more than a month, but was removed after the month period and was re-posted again before a month has elapsed when the nomination had started? ZooFari 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea is to recognize pictures that are stable in the articles, so if something gets removed and re-added, it's not eligible. If you think an image was not removed in good faith (say you are having a beef with someone and he removes your pictures) you could bring that up in the nomination. Fletcher (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Basically agree. As I noted on Zoofari's gecko nom, I don't think it's eligible because it's been out of articles longer than it's been in them, and has been out of its 'main' article since August until a couple of days ago, so I wouldn't say it's stable - yet. To take it to extremes, say I had an image that was in an article for a fair while but replaced with something better two years ago, could I nominate that because it used to have high EV there - obviously that would be silly. There's genuine cases of error or vandalism that I wouldn't think the strict limit would be applied to - for example the white heron nom currently on the page technically was removed from the article this week when Fir missed the nom here and replaced it with his own image, but it had been in the taxobox for almost a year before that. Fir acknowledged that as an error and reverted, so I don't think that means the Heron is now ineligible for another month. To an extent we have to take it on a case by case basis allowing for cases of vandalism, user error, edit warring, or vanity replacements, but I think it's going to usually be pretty clear whether it's been stable or not. --jjron (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Looking at the layout of WP:FP, are we planning on displaying examples of VPs on the main VP page? Commons does not, but if we are going to follow WP:FP's layout we should start categorizing now. Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should form categories for the different valued pictures. Do you have any suggestions as to the categories we could provide for the images? Elucidate (light up) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A little (late night, muddled) brainstorming:
The simplest way would be to just copy the categories from WP:Featured Pictures changing them if we need to. The top level categories might be used at first until they are populated enough to create subcategories.
Another idea would be to group them by different ways they could be encyclopedic, such as rare/historical images, highly informative images in a general way, or informative images in a specific, i.e. weird or unusual way.
A probably-too-difficult idea would be to show the most widely used valued images, or those that stayed the longest in an article. That sounds technically hard though, but would be interesting to see.
Of course with only four pictures so far all that is needed is a brief gallery of the most recent selections. Fletcher (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm a gallery would work now, but when (and if) the VPC project takes off, then we'll have to go through and categorize the pictures all again. IMO the category idea (the first one) would be the best/easiest. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it will just look a little awkward for a while when some categories have nothing in them! Fletcher (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
We will just have to sacrifice form for function. I think the categories will work best. Elucidate (light up) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I just put in my two-cents here. Having done closings on FPC, I find the biggest pain and time sink is fluffing around with putting them in categories - deciding where to put them, how to caption them, etc. That's why in my original proposal I specifically tried to avoid that by simply suggesting they go in a gallery with a simple caption identifying the main article and creator. The other parts of closing are no hassle. Finding closers at FPC can be hard at times, and I wouldn't want this project to wither because of closing difficulties (as I said at FPC talk, after one month here nothing had been closed, which perhaps helped to prod the process along). It also helps to distinguish it as a 'lesser' (not meaning that pejoratively) award than an FP. I did mention this to Elucidate when he was putting this together, but don't think I ever explained why I thought going just with the gallery was a good idea. --jjron (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) hmmm I see your point, but WP:FP does have subcategories and junk like that. Also, I think if we do just a gallery, then the VP page would look a little sloppy and unorganized. In response to your concerns, what if we had just basic categories with the basicist (yes that's a word now) captions? Looking at the FP categories and consolidating some, possible categories could be: Engineering and technology (which includes Engineeering and Aviation), Culture and Lifestyle (which includes Art), People, Places (which includes Maps as well as Views of Earth from Space), Plants, Animals, Sciences, and Other. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

One big issue that I foresee here is that we could potentially get a LOT of VPs - potentially far more than FPs (consider the 'pass' rate that we have seen so far). So if we had fewer or more streamlined categories they would quickly become VERY full themselves. I personally don't feel we're trying to emulate FP so don't see the fact that it has categories is a good argument for what VP should do. The gallery I linked to above was simply based on Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_thumbs with a slightly more specific caption. IMO - and perhaps I'm at odds with everyone else - the idea of VP is to identify images that we consider particularly encyclopaedically valuable and tag them as such for their articles, not to find how to best put them out on display in isolation. And as I said I think just using the gallery here would help to distinguish the higher status of FPs. I do see the argument for the categories, but am conscious of the extra overhead, etc it could create. --jjron (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay I see your point... I suppose categories aren't the best idea after all. :-/ Well, since we're focusing on the EV of an image, what if we had a small gallery of a dozen VPs on the main VP page with links to the article(s) that they contribute to? Any other ideas? :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Consider the discussion "Bot Closings" below. I like his idea. ZooFari 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

VP Criteria - lower technical standards vs no standards

I see the VP Criteria contain very little information on technical standards required. It seems this is being used in a number of noms to effectively argue that there are NO technical requirements. I don't believe this is necessarily the case - in my original proposal I was perhaps a little more explicit on this point, two of my points being:

  • The image is of a suitable size for its purpose. In general this means it should have acceptable resolution at image page size. The resolution should be sufficient that the key details being illustrated are clearly visible.
  • The image is of acceptable technical quality, without excessive digital manipulation. Technical quality covers such things as composition, lighting, colour balance, and sharpness. In general the image should have acceptable quality at image page size.

I think the gist of my argument was that similar standards to FPC would be applied, but only to the point of image page size, i.e., if it looked OK at image page size that was all that was required - open it fullsize if you want, but judge it on the image page. Does anyone else feel we could tighten this up a bit in the criteria, or am I missing the point? --jjron (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Hmmm you bring up a good point. I always thought that an image, in order to be encyclopedic, had to be clear and detailed enough, but I suppose pointing that out in the criteria would be a wise decision. Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the criteria should reflect on the technical quality of the image. We don't want VPC to become nothing more than a dumping-ground for failed FPCs. EV should be our focus, but we shouldn't let technical quality fall to the wayside. Elucidate (light up) 19:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Question: Are we not requiring at least a 1000px x 1000px size like in FPC? I think size a requirement (even if it is a bit smaller) should still be in effect. A very useful image that is only 250px square can't be all that useful even if it is commonly used. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The technical quality needs to be sufficient to discern the important details in an image. The exact resolution requirement for this will probably vary from shot to shot. I see no reason why fixable problems (tilt, poor cropping, panorama stitching errors) shouldn't be fixed during the nomination, particularly for self nominations (the users are typically more motivated in this case). In my view VPC will hopefully benefit the encyclopaedia by providing motivation for photographers that lack the technical means to take featured quality photographs, most of the birds I see for example are not in range of my equipment, and I can't afford a high end super-telephoto. It will also hopefully provide motivation for the restoration of important, but poorer quality historic images. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's right. Wadester, if you look at the first dot point I put above it talks about image size, and is my take on it, and it sounds that NS is thinking in a similar way - to quote myself again "The resolution should be sufficient that the key details being illustrated are clearly visible". I don't think the 1000px minimum rule is necessary, or even a good idea, here. As people say above, EV is the focus, but without decent technicals I think EV is compromised. --jjron (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

VP 'Winners' Insignia

Is this the best we can do for the image page insignia/logo/whatever you call it? I looked at one promoted image and thought it had no tag, and only after looking through again did I notice that this icon was denoting a VP. --jjron (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Here are available options I could find. Muhammad(talk) 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Heres how each would look

Muhammad(talk) 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


  • LOL well since this is VPC I Support the first one, but as long as the image is changed any of them work for me. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I have asked Commons user LadyofHats to design us a unique logo (she designed the VI seal for Commons), but she has been really busy at the moment. She has acknowledged the request, and has it on her to-do list. As we don't yet have a seal or logo, as such, I suggest the first proposed image, at least until a seal is designed specifically for the project. Elucidate (light up) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • IMHO the commons QI and VPC seals are flawed because they are too complicated, we want something simple and recognisable like the FP star, maybe a set of scales or something. My choice would be something simple like the one I just added above (shameless rip off of the PODY candidate logo thing). Noodle snacks (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I like the last suggestion. Perhaps if an FP/FA star were added to the leaves, for a sort of distinctive touch? Elucidate (light up) 07:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The star might get confused with a FP. Added a new one taking the pragmatic approach, two letters in Ariel, which is the a rip off of the best font ever (Helvetica) :P (actually technically it evolved from something else). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I like. The font is good, and the text adds that certain je ne sais quoi to the seal. It also has a semi-formal look about it. I think it would work. Elucidate (light up) 11:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I kinda prefer the one with the wikipedia globe and Valued Pictures. Muhammad(talk) 12:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that the WP globe is redundant since the user knows where they are and it doesn't provide additional information. It would be the choice of the first three from me though. I'd ditch the fancy font for the size it will be displayed at. Another option is to ditch the WP logo and text, then put VP in that sort of wreath. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the first one or the fifth one out of these, but would tend towards the more simple fifth one. Would be interested to see the first one with the VP in the middle as NS suggests. --jjron (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't suppose there is a SVG version of version 1 to edit from is there? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so, but do you really need an SVG when it will be displayed at around 50px only? Muhammad(talk) 09:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Another one somewhere in between attached Noodle snacks (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the new one. (6th version) Should we put up a vote? Muhammad(talk) 19:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Star

The featured pictures have a 14px star at the top of the page. Should we have something like that for VPs? Muhammad(talk) 13:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We could probably do so, but is it becoming a bit presumptuous? But if we adopted the fifth choice above, perhaps the fourth one without the text could be used for this purpose? --jjron (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
First we need to decide which template we will use, that way we can use the image in that particular template in any vp fields. ZooFari 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

GA symbol variation?

I've always thought of VPC being somewhat analogous to the various forms of good content i.e. good (article|topic)s. Perhaps we should shoop the GA symbol? MER-C 13:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

Hey, could we have a few more !votes on Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Mimbar?? It's been up for a while, but I don't want to promote/fail it since it's right on the line and it was nominated just when VPC was starting up. Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Personally I'd just close it as no consensus. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with NS, I will create the deleted biography again with references and then maybe re-nominate the image, after it has been in the article for a month. Muhammad(talk) 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I would tend to oppose on EV atm, however would support if the guy still had his own article. I guess you can take that as a 'vote' if that helps with closing. --jjron (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued pictures

Not meaning to pre-empt things, but I have dumped the currently promoted images into a gallery on the Wikipedia:Valued pictures page, simply because it looked a bit silly being blank yet saying there were 8 of them, and because they weren't being displayed as actual VPs. This is pending some decision at the Categories discussion above. --jjron (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, looks like it's been unilaterally decided by User:ZooFari to remove the gallery and go with the categories... --jjron (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's Decide - Gallery or Categories

OK, so with both options now on the table - see here and here - lets make a consensus decision. Categories, or VP gallery only. I'll start the voting... --jjron (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support Gallery Only. I think I've stated my case elsewhere, but just for the record, having done a fair bit of work on the categories at Featured Pictures, I know what's involved and am unlikely to contribute to maintaining the cats or closing noms here if we go categories. --jjron (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Gallery Only. Per jjron essentially, the closing procedure at FPC is long and arduous, keep it simple and the workload low.
  • Support Small Gallery Only per jjron's comments above. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Categories. "Dumping" images into galleries, as described in the above discussion, is not a good idea. Some time in the feature, we will have hundreds of images, and having plain galleries will make the page too large. That's when we will want to create categories and it would be even harder because by that time we would have more images in Valued pictures than in Featured pictures. That is why we (or atleast I'm willing to create it myself like how I already started) must create the categories if we choose to at this time before it is too late. In other words, "Regret" is what I would use for the gallery situation. But if you feel that galleries will do best, let me know so I can revert my edits from the Valued pictures page. Otherwise, let me know if you want me to continue creating the categories. ZooFari 21:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think (and I've gotten in trouble for doing that in the past) that the idea was to have a small gallery of maybe a dozen images at a time on the main VP page. But I could be wrong. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      I had started to create the categories without being aware of this discussion, so I "paused". Since this consideration has not yet been aproved, your style can still be under consideration. ZooFari 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What I was thinking was something like Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_thumbs, but with the VP header stuff at the top of the page. If you follow the link to FP thumbs you go to the most recent promotions, with links to pages containing older ones in groups of 100. That was my conception and is pretty easy to maintain - basically every time you hit 100 you dump the older 100 onto a new 'archive' page which also displays the header, and start again on the mainpage, and all links continue to go to the page with the most recent promotions. The only trick being handling delists (i.e., how often do you reshuffle to maintain 100 per page). But I'm not overly fussed if say people liked Intothewoods idea of a small gallery with a dozen or so images. I'm not sure how you would choose which ones to display there, whether it would just be the most recent promotions or what, but it could work. I must commend ZooFari on his work thusfar on the categories, but as I've said a number of times, there's a lot of overhead - atm he is willing to do the work, but when he takes an inevitable wikibreak, as we all do from time to time, who's going to keep it going? --jjron (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Gallery I'm ok with this. Fletcher (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral While I think categories sound better, less work for us volunteers sounds great too so I will support the eventual consensus. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Gallery While I understand ZooFari's concerns, having closed a few nominations this week at FPC, I know it will be quite a hassle here once it gets active especially since VP has lower standards compared to FP. Muhammad(talk) 09:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Gallery Looks like this will work out for the best. Elucidate (light up) 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Main VP Page

Okay, so per this conversation, I changed the main VP page to have a gallery showing 16 of our Valued pics, with the idea that, whenever a new VP is added, the bottom VP will be removed. I also added a caption at the bottom listing at most the 3 articles that the image is most useful in. For example, for File:OregonCoastEcola Edit.jpg I only listed Oregon Coast as its caption since it is only in a gallery in Oregon. Anyway, any comments/questions that we can work out? If any of you want to work on the gallery, feel free to beautify it. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good job. I added a caption to the VP gallery, as we don't want to confuse readers into thinking the gallery shows all VPs, when in fact it is just showing the most recent 16. Fletcher (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So where do the rest go? They aren't being archived? ZooFari 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry - they're all listed on Category:Wikipedia valued pictures (a link to which is at the bottom of the main VP page too). Any promoted VP gets a template tag which records that it's a VP. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see :) I posted a "see more" link at the bottom of the gallery, hope that was okay :) ZooFari 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

VPC Template Pic Vote

Okay, so let's resolve this problem. Which image should we use for the template (see here for how they'd look in the template).

List your first, second, and third choices underneath each image. Voting closes January 31st. (sorry about the bad format, BTW) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Option One

Option Two

File:Oscar icon.svg






Option Three

File:Award idea02.svg






Option Four

Option Five

Option Six

Option Seven (keep it the same)

  • Is this still a choice :-) --Muhammad(talk) 19:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Sure why not? Just thought I'd throw it out there. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates/Archive_1&oldid=1089829717"