This is a Featured picture. Click here for more information.
This is a Quality image. Click here for more information.
This is a Valued image. Click here for more information.

Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 2

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

Link to criteria page

When reviewing, I find myself looking for a quick way to get to the criteria page, as I can't remember all the criteria. Would it be possible to add "(criteria)" to both the small and the large review boxes? In the former, it could go after "Review page (edit)" and in the latter under "Review". What do you think? --MichaelMaggs 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.. For the thumbnails I find it a little odd to have identical criteria links scattered all over the place, so I am a little bit reluctant towards that idea. For the review page itself, we can certainly add a link as you suggest. We might even transclude the criteria directly into each review page. This can be done very easily. -- Slaunger 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok with that. There's probably too much text to transclude, though. --MichaelMaggs 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have added a convenience link to criteria under Review in {{VIC}} and {{VISC}}. Is it as you intended? -- Slaunger 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, looks good. --MichaelMaggs 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to "(criteria)" appears only once an image has been reviewed. It does not appear in the unreviewed version. --MichaelMaggs 08:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Ping. --MichaelMaggs 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had overlooked your comment. It took me time to realize that the link is not there in the table when the review parameter is empty (because then the review row is not show. However, I do not think we need it anymore as the criteria link appears in one of the first lines of the transcluded review instructions? Speaking of review instructions we should probably substitute these in instead. Otherwise all VICs and VISCs will have to be rerendered every time we change a comma in the review instructions... -- Slaunger 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. How do we go about that? --MichaelMaggs 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Can be done by tweaking the templates. I'll have alook at it. Busy these days though.... -- Slaunger 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Finalized promotion rules

Based on the discussion above I have put these into a new page Commons:Valued images candidates/Promotion rules. --MichaelMaggs 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I took the liberty of rephrasing it a little. -- Slaunger 20:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Good improvements. --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We probably don't want to say "Nomination remains pending until a majority is achieved." That means it's possible for people just to lose interest and leave the nom open. I think if a nom remains tied for 7 days from the last vote, it should be declined. Superm401 - Talk 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A similar rule seems to work fairly well in consensual review on COM:QIC. However, I suggest that if we see people losing interest over and over, we change the rule such that it is closed after seven days as declined as you suggest. -- Slaunger 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. After several separate discussions we have ended up with some not-very-consistent rules, and I think we should review the whole thing to ensure we don't have too many arbitrary periods. Also, several people have raised worries about the potential for noms where the desision isn't clear to remain pending for long periods, and I have some sympathy with that. The current proposals you can find at Commons:Valued images candidates/Promotion rules; below is my suggestion to deal with these issues:

Image and set nominations

Votes Action
All  Support or all  Oppose votes Promote/decline at least 7 days after the first vote
Unequal numbers of  Support and  Oppose votes (at least one of each) Promote/decline based on the majority at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote
Equal numbers of  Support and  Oppose votes (at least one of each) Decline at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote
No votes at all Decline at least 7 days after nomination

Most Valued Reviews

In a most valued review the promotion of a single candidate is governed by the score as shown in the table below. The score is defined for each candidate as

score = (number of  Support} minus (number of  Oppose).

The winner of the MVR is promoted to or retains its existing VI status. If the losing candidate already has VI status, it is demoted within that scope in favour of the winner.

Score Action
One candidate has a positive score larger than other candidates Promote that candidate at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote
Two or more candidates have identical positive scores Close MVR at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote, with no promotions/demotions
None of the candidates have a positive score Close MVR at least 7 days after the last image was added, with no promotions/demotions

--MichaelMaggs 19:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can live with this setup if we are pretty open-minded about people re-nominating declined nominations after equal or no votes. However, I would really prefer that the nominations ending up with an overall neutral or no vote is moved to an unassessed state, from which they can be re-nominated by anyone whenever there are reviewers around with better knowledge of the scope of nomination and/or the general review activity on the page has increased. With the unassessed state available I would like to make it harder to re-nominate a previously declined (due to a minority vote) candidate. That is, something would have to be changed about a previously declined candidate, such as a change of scope to a more relevant one or improvements on the image page regarding description, categorization and/or geocoding. -- Slaunger 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I just wonder whether in practice that would work? Making it hard to re-nominate unless there has been a change would mean a lot of time spent trawling through page histories to see if, for example, a geocode had been added before or after the date the last nom for that image closed. We will always have to allow re-noms anyway, even after a clear rejection, if the reason for the rejection has been fixed, and I'm uncertain about the benefits of this additional "unassessed" state. Isn't it likely to get filled up with images no-one has bothered to vote for? That usually means they are no good, at least on FPC. --MichaelMaggs 20:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning how hard/easy it is to unravel, I would say it is quite easy. If the image was declined, the result of the original nomination would say it was "declined" if it is re-nominated. It will also be quite evident why it was declined based on the votes in the original nomination (the same nomination page is reused on re-nomination only the votes are reset). I do not see nay reason for trawling through histories to check when some additional information was added. What is relevant is if the issue which caused the image to fail its original nomination has been fixed. This should be quite easy to check. If a nomination has been closed as "unassessed" you will also see this immediately in the result of the review section and you would know that it is OK to re-nominate without further actions. As to whether the unassessed images will pile up: You may be right and I may be right. If you are right it is not big deal that a lot of candidates pile up in, e.g., Category:Unassessed valued images candidates as long as they are sorted in a sensible manner, e.g., by date of nomination. So I would say it is no harm in doing it. If this category is created, the Category:Declined valued images candidates will become smaller and more manageable. -- Slaunger 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Why not call it 'undecided' rather than 'unassessed', though? --MichaelMaggs 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I love compromises! -- Slaunger 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have now implemented support for an "undecided" state in all relevant templates (I think!), and I have also done an effort to update the VI documentation accordingly and in line with the latest consensus here. I may have forgotten pieces here and there. -- Slaunger 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
After an MVR it is now possible for an image both to retain an earlier VI status for some scope and also to be listed as "undecided" or even "declined" for that same scope. Is that a problem? I can see it may lead to confusion, and wonder if the existing VI should not be listed as "undecided"/"declined" in such a case. --MichaelMaggs 06:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point, this is confusing. For the neutral case (which is also a special case of nobody voting on anything) I think the VI should be brought back to its original promoted state. When the VI ends up with a negative score I cannot really make up my mind. I seems a little odd to bring it back to promoted in that case (which for me is a prerequisite for being a VI). And if it is set to declined it really ought to be demoted, I think... Hmmm.. It is not so easy and things are getting more and more complicated. I fear many will get problems actually understanding these rules... -- Slaunger 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wasn't all this supposed to be simple? I'll think about it for a while. --MichaelMaggs 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm away until the middle of next week, and will get back then. --MichaelMaggs 17:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<- I think the promotion rules for nominations look good now. For MVRs we still have a problem in that we should not normally allow demotions within a given scope unless another image is promoted in its place. If we don’t stick to that there is really no point in having the MVR procedure in the first place. I would suggest:

  • Two or more candidates have identical positive scores: Close MVR at least 7 days after the first vote and at least 48 hours after the last vote. No change to images which already have VI status within this scope. Tag other images as undecided.
  • None of the candidates has a positive score: Close MVR at least 7 days after the last image was added. No change to images which already have VI status within this scope. Tag other images having a zero score as undecided and those having a negative score as declined.
I have thought about it too and agree 100% with your revised wording. -- Slaunger 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--MichaelMaggs 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Geocoding requirement

I have had geocoding as a VI requirement right from the beginning in my original proposal (for image classes where it is relevant) and it is still there. However, after having been in the test review mode for some time, I am having second thoughts. It is a very exclusionist requirement when it comes to existing media as less than 2% of the images currently on Commons are geocoded. As a consequence I have often found that in looking for competing images to a VIC, the competing image has not been able to really compete in an MVR because it is not geocoded. I think this is bad, since after all we are after the best images within a given scope, and it just not makes sense if some mediocre image can get VI status just because it is the only one within the scope which is geocoded.

It also seems that the geocoding requirement is something which is a turn-off for potential new-comers, especially users who usually roam on the Wikipedias. After all it is still (unfortunately) quite tedious to geocode an image as it involves seveal steps, external tools, etc, which means it is a quite "nerdy" business. It isn't that bad once you have done it a few times, but the learning curve is a little steep I guess and can be seen as quite a barrier for many users.

Therefore I am getting more and more inclined to remove geocoding as a requirement, simply because it is too exclusionist and scares to many users off. Instead I think we should state something about that geocoding of relevant image classes is encouraged and is considered to add value. If, in the future geocoding becomes easy, such as pointing out the location is an integrated, interactive step when uploading, I think we could later add it as a requirement for images uploaded after the "geocoding made easy" date.

Opinions? -- Slaunger 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the requirement. Geocoding is easy, Commons:Geocoding provides plenty of explanations. --Dschwen 19:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are a lot of Commons regulars who finds geocoding easy, knows the procedures for making it easy, and apply them consistently. But there is also a lot of less regular users who don't, who primarily use Commons as a secondary forum, and who could add some value to this project. Many of these find it is a barrier even to understand the upload procedure, licensing, etc, simply because they do not do it that often. Understanding also how to do geocoding is yet another barrier for many users. At least that is the impression I have gotten from helping a few VI not-so-regular Commons test users complete the geocoding.
However, it not really the geocoding of the candidate images which concerns me the most but rather the lack of geocoding of the 98% of potentially competing images. For example, consider these two images
  • No.1 Geocoded, non-optimal image
    No.1 Geocoded, non-optimal image
  • No. 2 Not geocoded, better image
    No. 2 Not geocoded, better image
Say, if the first image were to be nominated within the scope: Christ the Redeemer, Rio de Janeiro it would be OK with respect to geocoding, categorization, the subject is relevant, etc. However, there are other images of this statue, which is for sure better. One of the best illustrations of the subject is perhaps the second image. Unfortunately it is not geocoded so it cannot compete with image one in a Most Valued Review. Instead the first image can be declined by a reviewer stating that, e.g., the second image is a better illustration of the subject with reference to this special clause in the present guidelines. The clause is there to avoid non-optimal images as #1 to be promoted. So far so good. However, I just wonder how much value is lost for image no. 2 due to its lack of geocoding? The location of the subject is well known as per the article Christ the Redeemer (statue) and for me the camera location is actually a minor issue as compared to the much better illustration of the subject. It is a fact that geocoding has not been well developed/well known for many users previously, so maybe a compromise solution would be to say that images uploaded and nominated for VI later than the date of the grand opening shall be geocoded (if relevant)? Unfortunately, such a scheme also makes the guidelines more complicated. -- Slaunger 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
In the example you give, the solution is easy: the reviewer can geocode the existing image and open a MVR which the existing image will probably win. Result: the best picture is accepted, and as a bonus an image which was not previously geocoded now is. Admittedly, this will not be possible in all cases but the benefits more than outweigh the disadvantages. New users still won’t geocode initially, but if their images start getting put up for VI status or are referred to in a VI review, they will have the incentive to learn. Also, bear in mind that the 98% statistic is rather meaningless. Geocoding isn’t actually applicable to many types of image: mainly to photographs of views or wildlife. --MichaelMaggs 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In almost all cases I have dealt with so far the creator of the competing image is simply not active. Like no activitiy for several months. And I have only very seldomly experienced that a creator of a competing image did respond to a request for geocidng on their talk page. In some instances it is possible to geocode those images, when the place is well-known although it is tedious and a little error prone concerning precision. But, OK, I surrender. Let us keep the requirement. Several users have said  Keep to the requirement. I just felt that maybe a lot of users thought this was a tedious and unnecessary requirement. I am sort of glad for the support to geocoding. -- Slaunger 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

{{VI-former}}

I think this template to indicate demoting of an image for being VI within a certain scope is nicely designed. I have one reservation though. I think the VI logo with the red cross should be left out. I think it is fair game to be demoted in an MVR, but I would personally prefer a more discrete template on the image page, as the red cross for me indicates something worse than average. When an FP is demoted this template {{Delisted picture}} is used, which is much more discrete. How about if we removed the crossed out VI logo from the template and kept the information about the demoted scope and the link to the nomination? In addition I think the wording should be tweaked, specifying that it is no longer a VI within the stated scope as it may still be VI within one or more other scopes. -- Slaunger 07:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK. --MichaelMaggs 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've boiled the text down a little further.
  1. What is the purpose of the span section in the template (I am not familiar with the notation and curious)?
  2. I guess former VIs shall be associated with the category Category:Former valued images as a subcat of Category:Valued images. If yes, I will edit the template accordingly.
-- Slaunger 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. The scan code was copied across from another template and probably isn't needed if there is now no embedded table. I'm not an expert in templates, as you can tell. By the way, are you sure it is good to have no logo at all? Most templates do have logos, and without one it's harder for a user to see what the box is about without reading it all. That's not ideal, given that any one image may have lots of templates added to it, following one after another. How about something more discreet, like a broken seal? By the way, if Ladyof hats isn't around we may need to make up our own VIS logo. --MichaelMaggs
I cleaned up VI-former a bit. Concerning a logo, I still prefer a template without it, and I think it works fine that way. Discrete. But it is not something I feel strongly about. A broken seal logo is surely better than a logo with a red cross in it, but I am not going to make it. Concerning a VIS logo, I could try and make one in Inkscape based on VI. -- Slaunger 07:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. --MichaelMaggs 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall a multi-purpose award template be used instead of dedicated VI templates?

This thread was originally posted on Commons talk:Valued images. -- Slaunger 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is how a sample use looks like (from Image:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg):

Template (a soup of "awards")
Picture of the year
Picture of the year
Featured picture
Quality image
Quality image

Wikimedia CommonsWikipedia

This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2007.
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination [[Commons:|here]].
This is a Quality image and is considered to meet the Quality image guidelines.
 With an aspect ratio of 8:5, 16:10, or 16:9, this image is suitable as a widescreen computer wallpaper (see gallery).
Wikipedia
 This is a featured picture on the German language Wikipedia (Exzellente Bilder) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination here.
 This is a featured picture on the English language Wikipedia (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination here.
 This is a featured picture on the Spanish language Wikipedia (Recursos destacados) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination here.
 This is a featured picture on the Turkish language Wikipedia (Seçkin resimler) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination here.

If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Usage 
{{Assessments
  |POTY=4|POTYyear=2007  <- Picture of the year parameters (you do not care about this parameter)
  |featured=1    <- Featured picture on commons      (you do not care about this parameter)
  |quality=1   <- '''Quality image on commons'''   (Bingo, this is all you care about)
  |wallpaper=2   <- Widescreen walpaper notice       (you do not care about this parameter)
  |dewiki=1 <- Featured picture on de.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |enwiki=1 <- Featured picture on en.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |eswiki=1 <- Featured picture on es.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
  |trwiki=1 <- Featured picture on tr.wikipedia (you do not care about this parameter)
}}
Template (just valued image)
Valued image
Valued image

Wikimedia Commons

This image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image' on Commons within the scope '.

If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Former valued image
Former valued image

Wikimedia Commons


If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Candidate Valued image logo goes here

Wikimedia Commons


If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Usage 
{{Assessments|valued=1|V1=test1|V2=test2}}
{{Assessments|valued=2|V1=test1|V2=test2}}
{{Assessments|valued=3|V1=test1|V2=test2}}

Discussion

See above... This template is capable of doing what the three templates {{VI}}, {{VI-former}}, and {{VIS}} can do.

I would recommend it's use over the three templates.

-- Cat ちぃ？ 10:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear White cat,
It is good and relieving to see that you have gone away from the idea of displaying logos on top of each other.
I am overwhelmed by your eagerness to carry this out. It is almost like you have had a revelation of some kind. I am sorry but I do not see the light personally. OK, but instead of just stating some overall negative opinions about your multipurpose quest, let me be specific with some concrete comments and questions, which are not as fluffy as my previous generalized con remarks:
  • I do not think the text displayed alongside with the VI is adequate as it speaks of quality (which is a QI thing) instead of value and about nominating it as an FP (why FP?).
Questions:
  1. A VI is specific for a scope. The scope shall be stated in the template. I do not see that in your example. Is that supported?
  2. A VI shall link to its nomination page within the stated scope? Does the template support that?
  3. The link is to the nomination is by default generated from the image name. Does the template support that?
  4. It shall be possible to override the image name based link to another subpage if a subpage parameter is explicitly specified. Does the template support that.
  5. A single image can be VI within several concurrent scopes. Does the template support that?
  6. On top of that a VI can be former VI within several concurrent scopes. Does the template support that?
  7. Today, if I change the VI template only image pages with the VI tag are affected by rerendering in the job queue. What happens if it is absorbed into a multuppurpose template used for FPs, QIs and VIs and whatever. Will the 200 FP image pages, the thousands of QI pages need to be rerendered?
  8. When a VI is nominated I intend to subst a yet to be defined {{VI-promotion}} template into the page, which substs in relevant VI subcategories based on the topic and the date of nomination. To ease maintenance work in organizing the VIs. Substing the template leaves a VI template on the page with remaining parameters parsed in, such as the scope and an optional subpage parameter. How can this be done for the two cases.
    1. The image page has already a multi-purpose award template which needs to have the VI paramaters added?
    2. A multi-purpose template has to be generated?
Currently the VI templates are not stabilized and several editors are working on them. The multipurpose template is restricted and currently I and other VI editors cannot access them. And I am not sure we should have access to the multipupose template either as most of it is beyond our normal scope of work and competences. This is a hindrance for progress of the project and a cause of confusion. As it is now I am not at all convinced that the combined multipurpose template has any advantages over a dedicated VI template. You keep on asking and trying to force the multipurpose template down throats of users who are not interested in it asking "why not"? To flip the coin I would like to ask: "Why?". Cheers, -- Slaunger 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK here are my responses:
  1. I copied the wording from the templates {{VI}}, {{VI-former}}, and {{VIS}}. The wording can be altered. I can add any extra support aside from those. Right now it does exactly what these three templates do.
  2. The original templates had two parameters. Second one (V2) seems to be scope and first one (V1) the sub page name. You can define the scope by using the V2 parameter.
  3. The V1 Parameter would be your sub page name which would be {{PAGENAME}} if not defined.
  4. Per the previous question V1 parameter can be defined to be any filename.
  5. "V2" parameter can be passed multiple scopes since "scope" is merely text... An example would help me better understand this.
  6. Right now the template is designed to allow the image to either be a former or current "valued image". Making the alteration you suggested is trivially easy but I want to understand this issue completely before I make alterations on this end. Can you better describe this with an example or two?
  7. This is a performance issue and is a no issue. There are far more than 200 featured images. Unless a template is used in hundreds of thousands of pages (like {{GFDL}}) this will not cause a server overload. And by the time we have that many Featured/Quality/Valued images our server capacity will be much much higher. The pages rendered depends on the template you altered. All templates using the template will be rerendered eventually but this is done at slow pace so as not to put strain on servers. The net affect of any alteration is negligible. How often do you intend to alter the template? Templates are typically static.
  8. I am uncertain what you mean. An example would help me understand.
-- Cat ちぃ？ 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of the work is done inside Template:Featured picture mul/com. I'd be more than happy to help you guys resolve such technical issues. Template:Featured picture mul is also being developed. In addition you can still work on {{VI}}, {{VI-former}}, and {{VIS}} and I could apply it to the general purpose template.
I am not forcing anyone to do anything. You are treating me as if I am an invasion force. You have any idea how incivil that is? You will need to stop assuming bad faith, I am not here to wreck the project. :)
I am a long term commons contributor. I should have a say how commons works like the next user. I noticed a problem (redundancy of multiple templates), thought of a solution (unified template) and am implementing that solution. Along the way I am adjusting what I am doing in the light of objective objections. All in a days work...
-- Cat ちぃ？ 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User (un)friendlyness

Regarding this notation 

{{Assessments|valued=1|...}}
{{Assessments|valued=2|...}}
{{Assessments|valued=3|...}}

... I find it hard to read and understand without explicitly cross-referencing documentation (if it were there). com3 menas "somthing relating to valued images", but there is no mnemotecnic link. 1 means VI, 2 means former VI and 3 means VIS. I propose a more human readable syntax. It is like reading assembly languange or something like that. Since the assessment template is protected I cannot go fix it to make it more readable. -- Slaunger 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These are temporary names. They can be adjusted in a blink of an eye. But I wanted to do that after community input. Parameter names should be short yet understandable. com3= could be comvalued= or comvi= for example. Adjusting the code would be trivial work. com3= is a temporary working name. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, perhaps even better would be
  • com3=1|V1=scope|V2=subpage being replaced by comvi=scope|subpage=subpage
  • com3=2|V1=scope|V2=subpage being replaced by comviformer=scope
  • com3=3|V1=scope|V2=subpage being replaced by comvis=scope
which would be a more compact and I guess understandable notation - if it was not for the one-to-many relationship mentioned below. -- Slaunger 11:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets discuss this below then. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

One-to-many relationsship netween image and VI scope(s)

For me it seems like the template logic only supports a one-to-one relationship between an image and a VI designation. Is that correct? In that case it has to do more than that or the template needs to be repeated on the image page when that is the case. See for instance #Can an image by VI within several scopes? Based on the consensus reached in that discussion the same image could be tagged with 

{{VI|Temple Saint Sava.jpg|Saint Sava Temple}}
{{VI|Temple Saint Sava Buildings in Belgrade|Buildings in Belgrade}}
{{VI-former|Temple Saint Sava Orthodox Serbian Churces|Orthodox Serbian Churches}}

Which on the image page will show up as something like this

VI seal
Valued image

This image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Temple Saint Sava.jpg. You can see its nomination here.

[[Category:Valued images promoted Error: Invalid time.|Error: Invalid time.]]

VI seal
Valued image

This image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Temple Saint Sava Buildings in Belgrade. You can see its nomination here.

[[Category:Valued images promoted Error: Invalid time.|Error: Invalid time.]]

This image is a former valued image on Wikimedia Commons within the scope: Orthodox Serbian Churches. You can see the original nomination and demotion here.

You may argue that this is image page clutter. Maybe a little, but it is simple to maintain and understand and the number of image pages where you could encounter these multiple VI examples will be limited. An important point in this is that each scope has its own nomination page for the same image. As I see it the only way such logic can be implemented with your template is by doing copy and paste of the template like this (correct me, if I am wrong) 

{{Assessments|valued=1|VI1=Temple Saint Sava.jpg|VI2=Saint Sava Temple}}
{{Assessments|valued=1|VI1=Temple Saint Sava Buildings in Belgrade|VI2=Buildings in Belgrade}}
{{Assessments|valued=2|VI1=Temple Saint Sava Orthodox Serbian Churces|VI2=Orthodox Serbian Churches}}

I do not see any advantages in such a notation. For me it much more verbose and harder to understand and maintain. In principle the Assessmenst template can be extended (and so can the VI, VIS, VI-former) to be capable of supporting more scopes and subpages within the same template instance, but that will only make the template script more complicated and even harder to read and understand. And for the VI templates this means we would need named parameters as template arguments making their notation more verbose. I hope this example is what you were looking for to better understand. -- Slaunger 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

There are many ways to address this. There are many things we can do. We could also set ourselves some rules to make the code more simple. Let me propose a few "rules" but feel free to agree/disagree:
  1. That we use a single template to deal with all VI related tasks. That is we do not translucde the same template multiple times like above.
  2. We make it mandatory for all of the nominations to be on the same page. In your example that'd be Commons:Valued images candidates/Temple Saint Sava.jpg. On that page each section would be a different nomination, or a renomination. That way not only would it simplify the code (we could abolish VI1 parameter completely). Commons:Valued images/Buildings in Belgrade and Commons:Valued images/Orthodox Serbian Churches could list the nomination. That way you could have a full chronology (which image was the VI between which time period) of VI's for any specific scope. Think in the context of 50 years.
  3. VI2 parameter could link to the individual scope pages like: Orthodox Serbian Churches.
  4. We could use a seperate parameter in a manner similar to #2 to list "former VIs" and a seperate one to list individual "VI sets" (I am not entirely certain what these are).
So the task you want to archive (from what I understand) can be listed with the use of one to three template parameters.
-- Cat ちぃ？ 11:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. This is a possibility provided the nicer rendering of the image page outweighs the added compexity of template maintenance, bot operations, more elaborate testing and image page readability.
  2. I cannot see very well how it could work to have all scopes on a single subpage, which is derived from the image page. I think the subpage will be a mess and confusing to look at when transcluded into a review page dealing with a specific scope. I do see the advantages though of having such a unique namespace. One idea I had at some stage in the project was that at the time of nomination the nominator specified both the image page and the scope in two different input fields and based on that the subpage Commons:Valued images candidates/imagename/scope was opened for edit. One technicial detail in this is that I do not know how to impement it. But another issue is that during the course of test reviews we have been in recently we run into two different problems which the unique namespace idea with a double subpage does not adress well.
    • One use case, which we have seen from time to time is that the image is changed to another edit during the review. Since it in unpractical to start over with a new nomination page when this happens, we need some way to be able to override the default assummed relation between the review page and the image and scope parameters
    • A second use case is that the scope is adjusted to a more concise or appropriate one during the review. Again we don not want to restart a new review page because of that. This we also need a possibility to decouple/oiverride the default association between the review page name and the scope parameter.
    • Not that simple, really...
-- Slaunger 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay.
  1. It would simplify everything, yes. Link to the nomination page would probably be a "click here" link in the finished product anyways.
  2. Consider the below mock up case.
-- Cat ちぃ？ 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Example (Image:Temple Saint Sava.jpg)
Valued image
Valued image

Wikimedia Commons

This image has been assessed under the valued image criteria and is considered the most valued image' on Commons within the scope '.

If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

Example (Image:Usce tower and the Moon.jpg)
Former valued image
Former valued image

Wikimedia Commons


If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it.
If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.

More complicated to automate

Imagine an image is promoted to VI within a scope and that we have a (yet to be implemented) bot to support the nomination process and tag the image. With the VI templates this is done pretty simply by adding 

{{VI|subpage|scope}}

to the image page without having to implement any awareness of the existing content on the page. What happens if we want to use a multi-purpose award template like {{Assessments}} instead? Well, now the bot would have to be image page content aware. Say, if there were no previous awards it would tag the image page with something like 

{{Assessments|valued=1|VI1=subpage|VI2=scope}}

whereas if the image page already had, say a QI award as implemented with 

{{Assessments|QI params....}}

The existing template would need to be expanded like this 

{{Assessments|QI params...|valued=1|VI1=subpage|VI2=scope}}

Having to make the bot image page aware increases the complexity of such a bot, makes it harder to test and makes it more error prone. I think that is a disadvantage of having a multi-purpose award template. -- Slaunger 06:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The bot could have an if/else case. If {{Assessments}} exists do this else do that.
  • If {{Assessments}} exists parse out all past parameters. If VI parameters exist do this (append existing parameters with new data) else do that (add VI parameters).
  • If {{Assessments}} does not exist do this (add {{Assessments}} with VI parameters)
Programing of that is much easier than dealing with multiple number of templates that each could be used multiple times. As you would have to seek multiple templates and their parameters. Check them if they are the ones you are looking for and so on...
-- Cat ちぃ？ 11:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Feed-back from test nominators/reviewers and other stakeholders

This thread is for posting feedback from the test reviewers/nominators so far as well as from other users, who have an opinion about this project. Please voice your opinion here if you have been involved in Valued Images Candidates as nominator, reviewer, project editor or if you simply have followed the process and have an opinion.

What's good?

VI clearly serves a fundamentally different purpose from QI and FP, and this purpose is compatible with Commons' own purpose (providing useful free content for Wikimedia projects). Superm401 - Talk 09:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with superm. VI will eventually create a collection of encyclopedic images for the other sister projects of wikimedia.

Great idea of creating VI.--Mbz1 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that some images have values that is not measurable in terms of resolution and exposure but potential usefullness, rarity, or ability to express an idea in a unique way. --Nevit Dilmen 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

& New logo by Lady of Hats is good too. --Nevit Dilmen 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What's bad?

There seems to be a mix of two things here: is the scope an appropriate one to merit having a most valued image and is this particular image the correct image for that scope. I suspect this will not work well without a lot more clarification of the former. - Jmabel!talk 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, thank you for your comment. I understand if this aspect has been a bad experience for you. This has indeed been one of the less well described apsects of VIC until just a few days ago. Recently, MichaelMaggs has tried to improve on that by preparing a dedicated page about the scope: Commons:Valued image scope. There are links to this new page where relevant now, I think. Hopefully this makes things more clear? -- Slaunger 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Two minor things (for now...): (i) maybe the "used in" info should be visible in the small template; (ii) why doesn't the mark "*" work in the first comment? Maybe we shouldn't use list marks at all, they are not needed -- Alvesgaspar 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    (i) I have had the same thought. With the template solution we have, we have the possibility to show any field we want. the reason why I have not shown it until now is because it is an optional field. But this can be changed very easily if more users feel this way.
    (ii) Agreed. It does not work now (at least not for the first review comment), and this is annoying and I cannot figure out why. For later comments it is convenient for making an automic linebreak, but for sure we can just leave the itemization out for now. -- Slaunger 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please look at Category:Unassessed QI candidates. Something should be done to prevent the same thing happen in VI. --Nevit Dilmen 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What should we do with the test candidates?

Some thoughts are here. What do you think?

Does the link work? I hit it, but nothing happens. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It works. I guess I had not hit it hard enough.--Mbz1 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done?

Created, but needs work now on the logic. --MichaelMaggs 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Define and describe a process for closing VICs/VISCs
  • Discuss notification mechanisms to relevant stakeholders (nominator, creator, uploader)
  • Lobby at WP:FPC concerning WP:VP
  • Do all the other things we have forgotten right now...
  • Have a grand VI party...

(from my talk page) --MichaelMaggs 20:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Slaunger 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to leave test mode?

-- Slaunger 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

nope, not yet. --MichaelMaggs 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Before the grand opening the initiative should be publicized by all available means, especially in the language wikis (including en:WP): banners, news, village pumps, mailling lists, messages at the top of the pages, etc. This is IMO much more important than POTY and needs a well driven and relatively long campaign. The objective is, of course, to attract users from other places, both as active VIC nominators and reviewers, and as clients of existing VI (as well as QI and FP). Alvesgaspar 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    Such a coordinated promotion of the project is certainly an exiting idea IMO. I guess this requires that we should set a date (May 1, 2008?) and perhaps make a count-down to the grand opening with updates on 10, 5, and 1 day before the opening. This could perhaps boost the rollout and give a flying start for the project. If we do that (which I think is a good idea), I think we shall really reset all test nominations and start afresh on the grand opening (yes, Michael, that means I have changed my mind ;-). -- Slaunger 21:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree that there should be a grand opening, the proposal's not yet ready yet, and everything should be resubmitted when the grand opening comes. Superm401 - Talk 09:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    The templates are pretty complicated and have undergone changes in recent days. Before we announce the Grand Opening to the world I would suggest an initial "soft opening" of say a week during which the existing tests are re-nominated using the live procedure. New noms should be accepted but not sought. We want to ensure that the project is operating really smoothly and that we can handle a flood of new noms from inexperienced users before we make any public announcement. Finding that the nomination instructions are not clear, for example, would not be good if it annoys loads of potential contributors coming here for the first time. --MichaelMaggs 10:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, I agree with Alvesgaspar on the importance of VI; I think it's a great idea and would be ready to do my bit by promoting it on fr:wp and elsewhere if needed. I do think we need to wait a bit before officially launching it, and agree with Michael on the "soft opening" and resubmitting of the test noms. Lastly... great work, guys! :-) VI looks great and set to encourage many more contributors than QI and FP do now. Arria Belli | parlami 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks Arria! Should translation to French be done first? -- Slaunger 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    You're welcome. ^^ I think that if we started translating VI into French, it would only be fair to translate it into several other languages (at the very least, the ones of the biggest Wikipedias). At that rate it would take much longer, probably months, to get VI off the ground. I would prefer to wait and try the en: version first to get people interested in using it and then perhaps eventually translating it into their languages. Cheers, Arria Belli | parlami 13:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    Those are sensible arguments, lets wait with the translations. It is also best to achieve a high degree of stability before doing the translations. Otherwise the work will be many-doubled in endless maintainence trying to keep translations synchronized. -- Slaunger 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree there has been so many changes to the templates and instructions recently, that further testing is required. However, I cannot see how we can accomplish that by resetting the test noms, unless by resetting them you mean completely delete the candidate subpages so far! A vital part of the testing is to go through the "Add nomination" steps, and this is not accomplished by a simple reset. May I instead suggest that we ask a few other users we know to make some new test nominations. Preferably users who are completely new to VI. Then, once we have used the feedback from the new nominations to to the last finetunings of the process we wait until the grand opening. When the show opens we press the big reset button by changing the status of all (or perhaps just all test promoted?) candidates so far to "nominated", insert a test votes reset line in current candidate page review sections and reinstantiate them on the nominations page. In this manner the old test nominations do not get a head start in the official nomination process. -- Slaunger 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. --MichaelMaggs 21:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued image set seal

Suggested valued image set seal.

I tried making this for use on valued image sets. It is very simple clone of Image:Valued image seal.svg by LadyofHats. Feel free to improve it if you like (just overwrite the revision on the image page). Comments are also welcome. -- Slaunger 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it but would it be possible to remove the whitespace on the corners? -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess it is. I am not that accustumed with Inkscape. I tried to make it autoadapt its framing/page size to the selection, and I noticed it did not do as I had hoped to. Hopefully someone else can fix that. -- Slaunger 11:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Better now? -- Slaunger 12:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea but there still are some whitespace. :/ -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Could some drop-shadows be added to make it look more 3D; and maybe the underneath ones could extend towords the lower right, rather than just to the right? --MichaelMaggs 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I would also like it to stay with a 1:1 ratio. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not understand the 1:1 ratio thing? Concerning dropshadows, it would be a good idea, the lower ones could also get darker colors to evulate depth. Unfortunately, making that is beyond my capabilities. About extennd it to the lower right, I actually prefer it this way. The reason being that this will render better I think if several award logos are to be seen on top of each other. -- Slaunger 07:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess you are right... Would be better to see it in action. -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The value of the images of very common and very easy to capture subjects.

Hi, all. I'd like to share some thoughts with you, please. I am sorry in advance, if somebody would get offended by my comments. I'd like to talk about the value of the images of very common and very easy to capture subjects. IMO the more common and the more easy to capture the subject is, the more pictures of the subject are being uploaded to Commons the less value every image has. Of course every image has some value, but IMO in might be practically impossible to select the most valuable image from all available. Let's take for example this nomination. The scope is "High-rise apartment blocks in New Zealand". IMO the words "New Zealand" makes the scope way too narrow. What is the difference between High-rise apartment blocks in New Zealand and in Australia, for example? If I did not know the image was taken in New Zealand, I could have thought it was taken in Kiev, Ukraine. Do we really need to make one most valuable image of High-rise apartment blocks for every country in the world? Maybe for every city in the world? If the words "New Zealand" are taken out of the scope, IMO it would be all, but impossible to tell what is the most valuable image of High-rise apartment blocks from the ones that are available at Commons now. I believe what I'm trying to say is that IMO not every subject could be featured as a Valued image. IMO valued images should depict something more or less special because otherwise the readers of Commons might get lost while going through our Valued images. Once again I am sorry, if my comments hurt somebody feelings. Thank you.--Mbz1 14:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your point and I have some sympathy with it. See what you think of the guidelines in Commons:Valued image scope: they say that images of too narrow scope can be rejected on that basis. Of course, what is 'too narrow' will to a large extent be something that evolves as we get more experience; it's not the type of concept that can be fully tied down in completely bullet-proof words before we start, nor would it be a good idea to try to do so. On your point that VIs should "depict something more or less special", it's not as I understand it the intention that each VI should have to have some wow factor, as with FP's. Valuable does not mean visually striking. Could you have a look at the existing guidance and see whether you can suggest some improvements which would deal with your concerns? --MichaelMaggs 14:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, MichaelMaggs, I'd like to explain what I meant under "depict something more or less special" please. I did not mean that a valuable image should be visually striking. Not at all. I meant that IMO very common and very easy to capture subjects (even the ones that are visually striking) not necessarily could be made VI. I wrote my comments after I read the comments posted by Slaunger here. He writes:
" I agree with you, Ram-Man. One very nice thing about one having one FP per "subject" is also, that it can stimulate contributors to seek out new subjects/topics for which we have a lack of FPs. As I see it there are very many areas, which today only have a very few FPs. It is the same observation, which have caused us to state in the guidelines for Valued mages that we can only have one VI per scope. That is, to encourage a wider diversity of subjects. And if we still have COM:QI to recognise several high quality images within the same topic/subject/scope."
I agree with all of the statements Slaunger made. So let's get back to High-rise apartment blocks in New Zealand (I am using this only as a sample). Let's say we have few nominations with the scopes like these: High-rise apartment blocks in New Zealand ; High-rise apartment blocks in Australia; High-rise apartment blocks in Russia, and so on. The question is, if VI would benefit from featuring High-rise apartment blocks from even two-three different countries, leave alone ten or more countries? I don't think so. IMO the more similar images VI will feature the less value VI itself would have. On the other hand High-rise apartment blocks are so common and so easy to capture that, as I said earlier, it might be all, but impossible to select the most valuable one of them. So as I said earlier IMO VI might not benefit from featuring all possible subjects. I know that quite a few people worked really, really hard on VI guidelines and here I came with my comments. Sorry. That's it. Promise.--Mbz1 19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Mila, Thank you for your comments. I am not at all offended by your comments, I consider them very relevant. To take the example with the high-rise apartment locks in New Zealand, I somewhat see your point. As I also mention in my review this one is bordeline concerning the scope imo and for you it is quite far away from being a relevant VI scope. When I initially reviewed the image under the more general scope of high-rise apartment building blocks, I had an intial impression very similar to what you state initially, that there were very many candidates and many of quite similar value and I felt the evaluation was subjective as it would very much depend on the individual users mind set concerning apartment blocks. Then I looked at Tower block and High-rise to study some more background information and realized that the way typical high-rise apartment blocks look actually depend very much on when it was built and where it was built. That caused to suggest to narrow down to scope to either a period of time or a region, as I consider the image typical for both the period and region based on how I had looked around. One of the purposes of the test reviews is get opinions like yours out in the open. I can see your point too, so i think you should really oppose both images in the MVR based on a too narrow scope, as it is the community and not Michael and I who should decide where the relevance bar is. I would very much welcome more test reviewers with other opinions.
  • Thank you, Slaunger. May I please ask you, if you could think about a subject, which is represented in Commons, but cannot become a valued image for one reason or another? Thank you.--Mbz1 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
One issue where I think I do not agree with you is that a VI should show something special or unusual. Yes this is certainly within the scope (and also very much more interesting to review for me than high-rise apartment blocks), but a VI can also show something very ordinary, stuff you see a million times every day in your normal environment, but which only a few people would bother photographing, such as a rice cooker for instance. A boring object, easy to take, but nevertheless a useful and valuable subject useful in an article like Rice cooker. An aim of the project is to also let people stop up and also document both the ordinary and the unusual and rare to fill in the gaps. Does this make sense to you? -- Slaunger 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It does make sense to me. I guess I'm making things more complicated than they already are. Sorry.Thank you.--Mbz1 01:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
To ask the question of scopes which do not warrant a VI, there are two classes. Scopes, which are too narrow to be of sufficient relevance for WMF projects and scope which are so broad that VI does not really make sense because what is considered as most valuable by the individual reviewer will be very much dependent on the individual user. Examples
  • Too narrow: Lemons from Brazil, broken urinals, yellow garden hoses, rice cookers from the seventies
  • Too broad: Fruit, Toilets, garden equipment, household appliances
And in between that there is a grey zone of scopes where it becomes a little subjective if the scope is really relevant for WMF projects. It is this border line we are trying to establish in the reviewes and which you are helping us to draw. -- Slaunger 06:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding fruit being too broad, it may not be so. For instance a good diagram illustrating the basic generic elements (seed etc.) which constitute what we normally consider a fruit (without using a specific fruit for the example) could be VI, if done well, but it is not easy. So, it would probably be something different than a photo. I guess the same kinds of comments could be made about a most valued illustration of a high-rise apartment block. If that scope is illustrated by a generic drawing/exploded view of the typical elemnts in a high-rise apartment block I think that could be VI too. -- Slaunger 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued Images goes on air June 1, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

I (and MichaelMaggs) finds that it is time to set a firm date for the official launch of Valued Images. The project has been under discussion and development for almost five months now, and has matured. A few details still remain to be done, and this will take place over the course of the next two weeks. We have the following milestones ahead of us.

  • May 19, 0:00 UTC: Last call to test nominate further images. Add nomination section is disbaled hereafter.
  • May 25, 0:00 UTC: All test nominations are closed. The nominations page is cleared. A seven days countdown. All test images are transferred to the "undecided" state, which menas they can be renominated the minute VI goes live.
  • June 1, 0:00 UTC: The show opens, the add nominations section is enabled.
  • June 3, first closing round, where we might have our first VI/VIS. Which one will be the first?

A plan will be set up on how to accomplish these milestones in the following sections. -- Slaunger 20:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Warm congratulations to both of you for the excellent idea and highly organized implementation. I'm impressed with the quality of the project and the attention given to the details. I'll be one of the first nominators for sure! -- Alvesgaspar 20:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening details

We had planned a week-long 'soft opening' to ensure we weren't swamped with too many images to handle on day 1, but perhaps that's no longer needed? If not, I think we ought to start making public announcemennst very soon, not only on Commons but elsewhere. The need during the first few weeks will be to get enough reviewers who are prepared to put in the effort to make sure the first nominations are well-reviewed, as that will set the standard for the future. We ought to spam some talk pages of users who might be interested. --MichaelMaggs 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will try to structure, prioritize and delegate the actions below. -- Slaunger 21:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Final things to do

  1. Pull in helpers
  2. Plan and implement publicity
  3. Make sure closing instructions are clear

--MichaelMaggs 21:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on how to close nominations

I have tried to write a draft instruction on how to close VIC nominations. Until now it does not deal with MVR and VICS but these will have some similarities. However, I would like to get some feedback on this first, there are some uncertainties as we have not agreed on the organization of the images/image sets yet (see proposal above). Here it goes.

Closure of valued image candidates

The review of a valued image candidate or a valued image set candidate eventually leads to one of three possible results: promoted, declined or undecided. The specific outcome is governed by the promotion rules, which also establish the minimum time periods the nomination is still open for further reviews. Once the result is clear, the nomination can be closed.

Who can close a nomination?

Any registered user is allowed to close nominations provided these closure rules are followed. Users who have been personally involved in a specific candidate as nominator, creator, image editors, uploader or reviewer can also close a nomination, but only after waiting two more days than the minimum periods stated in the promotion rules. An exception to the additional two day rule is reviewers whose vote is not decisive for the result. Vote-and-close is not allowed.

Closing valued image candidates

Follow the edit link to the VIC awaiting closure and do the following:

1. Summarize the votes and the result in the review parameter by adding, e.g., (remember prepending space) 

 Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>
 declined. -- ~~~~

which leads to a text like 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. -- TheVICloser

2. Change the case-sensitive status parameter to promoted, declined, or unassessed depending on the result, i.e.,

status=promoted
When (number of  Support > number of  Oppose)
status=undecided
When (number of  Support=number of  Oppose) (this includes unassessed VICs)
status=declined
When the nominator has withdrawn (status=withdrawn) the VIC or (number of  Support < number of  Oppose)

3. Save the VIC. On the candidate list the VIC will now appear with a different border color and written state.

4. If the image is promoted to VI status, open the image page and substitute the {{VI-add}} template underneath the {{Information}} template as follows 

{{subst:VI-add|subpage|scope}}

where subpage and scope are copied from the analogous parameters in the VIC review page.

5. Make a new entry in Commons:Valued images by scope and link to the image.

6. Find the gallery or category, which best fits the scope. If it is a gallery, prepend the caption with {{VI-tiny}}. If it is a category and the catory does not have a gallery page, which shows the "best" already, create a new galley page with the name "Valued image of scope", add the VI in a gallery and prepend the image with {{VI-tiny}} and let this page associate with the category.

7. Notify the nominator with {{VICpromoted}}. (Should other stakeholders such as the creator, uploader and/or editor be notified as well)?

8. Remove the candidate from the candidate list (edit) -- Slaunger 11:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't actually tried this, but it looks ok. We may need to tweak once we get some practice. --MichaelMaggs 16:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You really want it foolproof and airtight, don't you? I wouldn't worry too much. It all looks very well constructed. And if we have to iron out a tiny fold, so be it. I'm impressed already anyway. Lycaon 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank you... I do not think the organization (which is related to the closure) is a tiny fold to iron out, but something which we should give some well-considered thought. It is because I know how extremely tedious and un-reawarding it can be do rearrange procedures, move this around, etc once the candidates start rolling in. So better to agree on how to organize things before we go live. Especially the new thing about not putting up a parallel hierarchy but do it in line with the normal category/gallery system. Like, if I were to place an image of "Edwardian architecture", where we do not have a similar category/gallery because our categories are sort of orthogonal to this, what to do then? Does it give meaning to add a gallery with a single image to a category to highlight the VI? One could also inline the gallery in the cat, but that is considered bad practise I guess...?? -- Slaunger 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The instructions dont give a clear indication of who can close is it editor, sysop, crat or ip? What constitutes the results need to also be included in the instruction text. Gnangarra 11:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing that out. I have added a section about who can close to adress this issue. I did not quite understand what you meant by "What constitutes the results..." sentence? -- Slaunger 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued videos?

Hi, I've uploaded few videos that IMO are valuabale. I wonder, if some could be nominated? Thank you.--Mbz1 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mila, We discussed this quite thorougly at an early stage of the project (I'm too busy to find the reference right now). At that time we decided to exclude video and sounds as well as scores and other types of less common media types from the scope of the project. The reason being that it would be too complicated to setup, to describe in the guidelines and that the number of media of this type seemed to be below a critical mass, which could feed a meaningful and lively review forum at a certain standard. Another issue is that due to the copyright restrictions on the more popular commercial video formats, like MPEG we are stuck with the more esoteric ogg format which is less well known, is less supported by various tools, and which has a rather steep learning curve to convert to from AVI on so on (I know the procedure, as I have a video here, you have to do an effort to get going). So, currently it is not in scope. As I see it, it could be made into an add-on side-project once VI has stabilized and is up and running. It will require quite an effort though to get up and running concerning all the practicalities of setting up such a project. -- Slaunger 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, Slaunger, thank you very much for the response. I do not want to take your time any longer, so may I please ask you to respond my next questions, when you do have a time. I am not in any hurry. I wonder what is such a big deal with a video clip. IMO it could be nominated excactly the same way as an image is, nothing new is required. IMO it is even easier than nomination of a set of images. For me it was not hard to convert videos in OOG. I've done five videos in one hour like, for example that one Image:Bears fight 22.wmv.OGG. Once again, I'm sorry to take your time. Please respond, when you feel like to. Thank you.--Mbz1 20:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not just the technical side. Some major reconstruction of the guidelines and lots of questions would need discussing, like Should a less accessible format make something less valuable? or Can images and audio clips ever really be compared next to each other? I would like to see a non-image media assessment side-project start up (lots of good candidates in Category:Media of the day), but I think it would be too much right now. Rocket000 21:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about your statement "Can images and audio clips ever really be compared next to each other?" and I believe that there are many videos and audios, which do not have to be compared to anything simply because they are very unique and one-of-a-kind. On the other hand I could see that still images of the common subjects also might have issues, if one would try to compare them to select the most valued one. Please notice, it is just my thought and I know how busy everybody is now, so I do not expect to get a response. Thank you.--Mbz1 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Open action items for Valued images

These are the actions to be undertaken in order to assure that VI will be launched in due time and will start of being a success.

Urgent actions

Helpers

We need helpers to spread the word, do some promotion work on other WMF projects, and assist with some practicalities.

Promotion

We need to plan the promotion now. I suggest a good native speaker drafts a short announcement in English, which can be used for publishing on the English Wikipedia, Commons and the other mostly English speaking WMF projects. The announcement can be translated to other important languages.

Awaiting translation into
Who do we know who could do those? --MichaelMaggs 17:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some stats on Wikipedia sizes can be found here. --MichaelMaggs 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

--MichaelMaggs 21:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. All the wikilinks in User:MichaelMaggs/Sandbox2 in need to have "Commons:" added into them so that the they will point to the right place when cut and pasted to another Wiki; eg [[COM:VI|Valued images]] should read [[Commons:COM:VI|Valued images]]. --MichaelMaggs 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that is simple. (Shall I do it?). We also need to agree on the timing when, where to put the announcements and when. I guess a natural place is the "Village pump" on the different Wikipedias, but perhaps also elsewhere like on the talk page of w:WP:FPC and how about Wikiversity, Wikinews, Wikisource, ....? I propose we ask the translators to post on their native language Wikipedia village pump, as it is likely they will have accounts there or can delegate the job to someone they know. Concerning timing, I suggest approximately 24 hours before the opening.
Who will make a list of where to make to make the announcements and who to make the post? -- Slaunger 20:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

VI/VIS organization

We need to agree on the organization of the VIs. I have written some half finished thoughts about this previously. I propose to draft a proposal and publish that May 19 for further discussion. -- Slaunger 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


VI/VIS closure

Needs to be defined. The implementation will depend on the VI organization. I can draft a proposal for a procedure to follow no later than May 20. -- Slaunger 21:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I did not finish this off on May 20 ;-( Too busy in real life and too littel sleep... Some preliminary work is at User:Slaunger/Sandbox/Closure. In the process of writing it I realized I needed another convenience template, so I created {{VI-add}} and extended {{VI}} to facilitate partial automated categorization. -- Slaunger 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Recruit reviewers

All asked, plus quite a few others who have made contributions. --MichaelMaggs 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion to look at the history of both FP and QI to see who has been just 'simple users' and who has actually 'gotten their hands dirty' (this is a United States phrase, which means sometimes literally getting some crud on your body by doing a task, fixing a car or weeding in a garden are examples of tasks that could do this, it is also used non-literally for the computer stuff where doing work does not mean that the workers get messed by the task but the time spent is usually extremely educational and can somewhat 'dirty' the mind) by helping with the maintenance of each of the review mechanisms. How do you know a good painting? By looking at a million of them. -- Rabo Karbankian
--carol 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, we need those who have gotten their hands dirty. You have been more involved the QIC circuitry lately than me, who can you suggest (just add then to the list)? -- Slaunger 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
--well, it is somewhat predictable, I typed this and went to see what has been going on, the CR needed some attention. Many of the usernicks I have put here were hand typed, so I am not sure if they were using the wikimorphed signature like mine.... -- carol 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The aussies eh, Gnarraga or whatever that nick is, I can look it up later (although, I am not entirely certain what got dirty, hands or the gallery then) and also, DOYOULIKEMONSTERTRUCKS? moved his own images from the holding area to the galleries for at least a while.... -- carol 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alves has been managing FP things lately but before him, Simonizer did some of the maintenance there (maybe all of it). -- carol 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Important actions

✓ Done Finalize test reviews

The current test nominations shall be finally reviewed no later than May 26 0:00 UTC. Reviewers we attempt to try and recruit could be urged to participate in the last test reviews. -- Slaunger 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done VI/VIS notification templates

Some template work needs to be done for conveniently notifying the nominator and possibly original creator, and/or editor that a VIC/VISC has been promoted. I could do that but would appreciate if someone else would like to have a go at it. -- Slaunger 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is something like this you have in mind? It's based on {{QICpromoted}}. (Not sure about the wording.) Rocket000 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, except that we need a subpage parameter to link to the nomination page as subpage differs from pagename of the image. Will gte back to you. I am working on the organization. -- Slaunger 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
We also need a related {{VIS-promotion}} template. I don't think this one should have an image embedded as the are several images in a VIS and it does not give miuch meaning to single one out. -- Slaunger 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{VISCpromoted}}. Go ahead and rename them whatever you'd like. I went with the QI naming scheme but I see they don't match other VI templates. Rocket000 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Transclude -> subst review guidelines into VIC and VISC pages

Today the review instruction are ´transclused in the nomination pages in {{VIC}} and {{VISC}}. This is unfortunate because

  • All candidate pages has to be rerendered every time the review instructions page is modified. Not a big issue yet, but bad practise later with potentially thousands of caniddate pages.
  • The reviews shall be done relative to the instructions that were the official ones at the day of nomination. But having the instructions transcluded, it will always be the newest procedure which is being display, also in old candidates.

What needs to be done

  1. subst in the review instruction in every VIC/VISC subpage, which exists now.
  2. remove the transcluded review instructions in {{VIC}} and {{VISC}}
  3. Create two new templates {{VIC-and-instruction}} and {{VISC-and instruction}}, which when substituted during nomination adds the {{VIC}} or {{VISC}} templates and substs in the review instructions
  4. Modify the add nomination preload templates such that they subst in {{VIC-and-instruction}} or {{VISC-and instruction}} instead of transcluding {{VIC}} or {{VISC}}
  5. Test that it works.

I could take the responsibility for carrying out this action, but I would like an assistant to help with at least item 1+2 (I can provide more detailed instructions). -- Slaunger 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can help if you can tell me what needs to be done. --MichaelMaggs 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wait, do you want the {{VIC}}/{{VISC}} subst'd? Or you want the subst'd instructions added to the non-subst'd {{VIC}}/{{VISC}} (sans instructions). Slightly confused. :) Rocket000 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The latter - if it was not for Dshwens comment...hmmm now I am in doubt... -- Slaunger 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If we have Rocket on this, I'm more than happy to step back. It's more his field than mine :) --MichaelMaggs 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
How about you still transclude, but create versioned subpages for the instructions. That way we don't spam the database with lots of redundant info, retain editability (for example to add multilingual translations to the instruction template, or just fix typos). Like {{VIC Instructions/May 2008}}. --Dschwen 22:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm..yeah I see your point. I just think it is hard to see where the line goes between making typo corrections and then really change the instructions in a manner which warrants a new version with a new subpage. I like your idea though (and of principle i hate redundant information). Throughout my professional work redundant information has always caused problems, further work...and frustration. I guess the isntruction will be creeping rather than make great steps. We could also decide to protect this page and accumulate changes on the talk page of the instructions and then update it on a monthly basis? However, that brings me to another subject which I dislike, namely protected pages, I find them very inhibiting for doing real work. -- Slaunger 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I hate page protection more than anyone (even more after becoming an admin), but I think in this situation it's very reasonable. Another approach would to simply treat it like an talk archive (most are never protected). Put a message at the top saying not to edit, and revert if someone does. Of course we can allow some changes (typo fixes, translations, etc.) This won't help the transclusion cost, but I don't think that's anything to worry about until there are thousands of VIC pages transcluding the same version. Then protection might be needed. We could always have a draft version in the works where we prepare the next version. Rocket000 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we could perhaps even start out not having a monthly subpage and as the need arises (if ever), we could do as you suggest. -- Slaunger 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done{{VI-countdown}}

I think we need a countdown template for the grand opening. Saying something about how many days hours and minues there are left to the grand opening. To help attract some attention. Maybe it should be included in the site announcements on other WMF projects pages? -- Slaunger 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have implemented the logic in User:Slaunger/Sandbox/VI-countdown. Now it just needs a nice wrapping. Anyone?
It looks like this (the text changes automatically to "is opened for nominations..." when the countdown has reached June 1 0:00 UTC):
The valued image project has opened for nominations!
Should we put this in the site notice? Too early right now, but I'm thinking let's give it a 24-hour countdown + a week or so after it launches (longer if needed). Rocket000 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we put it there one week before (that is when all test nominations are cleared from the candidates page at May 25, 0:00 UTC) and leave it one week after (till June 8 0:00 UTCish). The site notice has to be put in as plain text, like in a Template:VI-countdown-text, does it not? If yes, that means a fancy rendered output used on top of, e.g., the VI main pages should in a {{VI-countdown}} should then transclude the text version and wrap it in nicely? -- Slaunger 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Who do we ask to put up a site notice? The quicker we get that approved the better. Remember that Wikipedia may want their simpler project to go live on the same date. --MichaelMaggs 16:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, one person at WP has suggested that, but there is not really happening much currently with that proposal. I have written a notice on the site notice talk page telling what we have in mind. -- Slaunger 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the site notice talk page? --MichaelMaggs 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice. -- Slaunger 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought a week long countdown might be bad for retaining interest. When people first see it they'll be likely to check it out, but if there's not much going on, they may forget about it (especially if they hit [dismiss] and don't see the notice again). I think it would be better if the majority of the time it is up would be post-launch so people can see it in action and nominate images. On second thought, a week isn't very long on Commons. For users who spend most their time on other projects, they may only get to see it once in the whole week. Regarding the format, I have a slight fear of the MediaWiki namespace... I'm never sure what works where. Sometimes wikitext works and other times plain text is needed. I really wish there was more documentation on these system messages. Rocket000 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I found a little more documentation on site notice here. It seems like there is also a site notice id to increment, and there is a dedicated site notice for anonymous users. I think it would be relevant to have it on there, as there are many repository users from, e.g., the Wikipedia, who pass by on Commons to look for media, and these are relevant stakeholders as well. The text could be boiled down to something as simple as:
The valued image project opens for nominations on June 1, 2008 at 0:00 (UTC). Will yours be the first?
-- Slaunger 04:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I finalized the implementation fo the countdown template:
VI seal The valued image project has opened for nominations!

-- Slaunger 05:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Reset promoted/declined test nominations to undecided state

Once the nominations page is cleared by the end of this week, we need to inform the test nominators that previously test promoted/declined candidates will be reset to the undecided state, which means they can be renominated immediately when VI goes on the air June 1 0:00 UTC. Here are the tasks at hand

  1. ✓ Done Compile a list of test nominators to be informed (Kanonkas is working on this)

Here is the list:

-- Slaunger 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ✓ Done Draft a message to the test nominators, thanking them for their participation so far, informing them about the status change which will be done to the test nominations, and with instruction on how they can renominate the candidates when the project goes on the air. I hope the renomination can give a good initial boost to the project, as these will be "easy" to review (basically the work has been done already) and they are a good demonstration for new nominators of scopes which work, and what else to consider as a nominator. Here is what to do to re-nominate
    • Edit the candidate page
    • Set status=nominated
    • Set date={{subst:VI-time}}
    • If renominator differs from previous nominator set nominator=~~~
    • Save the edited page
    • Add the renominated image to either the VIC or VISC candidate list as described on COM:VIC.
  2. ✓ Done Send out the messages to the user on the list on May 25 after the noms are cleared from the candidates page
  3. Somewhere between May 26 and May 31, all test VICs and VISCs shall be reset. This is done as follows:
    • Explore all candidate pages placed in subcategories of Category:Valued images candidates and Category:Valued image set candidates.
    • Edit each candidate subpage as follows:
      • Change the status parameter to status=undecided
      • In the review parameter section place an archive subpage link in the beginning: [[/Archive|Archive of previous reviews]].
      • Move the test reviews to the archive
      • Add the following after the archive link in the parameter block:
        {{Info}} The test nomination phase of the valued images project ended by May 24, 2008. This nomination has therefore been reset to an undecided state (This sentence shall only be added to promted or declined candidates). It can be renominated when VI goes live on June 1, 2008 0:00 UTC. Previous votes are disregarded upon renomination.-- ~~~~

-- Slaunger 09:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the plan was to reset all the test nomination votes, but to re-nominate them all en bloc, on 1st June. As anyone can nominate, we don't need to ask the original nominator to go through the process again (especially as it will be slightly non-standard). Let's do it ourselves. --MichaelMaggs 10:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess we could renominate the previously test promoted candidates en bloc, which will have a high likelyhood of being promoted. For test declined or test undecided candidates I think nominators or other users should actively do it to avoid spamming with non-optimal candidates. In all cases i think all test candidates which are not promoted should be put in the undecided state to reset the nominations. -- Slaunger 11:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. --MichaelMaggs 11:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. That implies that we still should do as stated above, except that we should leave the candidates in Category:Promoted valued images candidates and Category:Promoted valued image set candidates and transfer these directly to the nominated state on June 1, and re-nominate those. -- Slaunger 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To-dos:

  1. Change declined test candidates to undecided
  2. Prepare test promoted candidates to be re-nominated by moving their test review to subpage-specific archive subpages.
  3. Shortly after June 1, 0:00 (UTC) re-nominate test promoted VICs and VISCs following the instructions for VICs and VISCs

-- Slaunger 23:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to have actions

VICbot

A bot for assisted closure along the lines of User:QICbot would be nice.

✓ Done Fix {{VIC-candidate-images}}

This template is used for the dispay of {{VOC-thumb}}s on the nomination page and in the MVRs. However there is a lot of space below, which can probably be fixed by nesting the {{#if:{{{n|}}}|...}} ParserFunctions inside. -- Slaunger 20:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the line breaks are needed. I can work on this one too. Rocket000 21:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This one's ✓ Done. Rocket000 23:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic, and you also cleaned up on the use of ParserFunctions! -- Slaunger 10:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Explanatory texts to candidates categories

I think it would be helpful to add some explanatory short introductory sections to Category:Valued images candidates and Category:Valued image set candidates the subcategories therein. See the cat hierarchy section above for details. -- Slaunger 10:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of making a header template for all these categories. Something to unite them visually and to make updating/tracking easier while providing some info (similar to what I did with all template categories), but in this case I would also include a description parameter so each category can have it's own text. There can be a few standard descriptions where only a word or two gets changed like with the "by month" ones. Rocket000 10:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You took the bait I had laid out for you ;-) I was hoping you would suggest something nice like that. Do go ahead, I am sure it will be great! -- Slaunger 10:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 Question Do think using the logo would be overusing it? Rocket000 19:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No, not if done discretely. I was thinking of streamlining all VI related messages, and for this purpose, I have created {{VI-message}}. Your category template could perhaps use that template as "foundation"? -- Slaunger 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I'm thinking: [1]. It matches {{Template category}} and {{Commons category}} while keeping it's VI identity. I do like the 2px border better, but in this case I think 1px works better, but I'm trying out other things. (Ignore that category tree for now, I don't know how to incorporate it.) Rocket000 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks fine. I am, by the way currently adding some specific text to the "Undecided..." categories with instructions on how to re-nominate. It is not that nicely formatted. I am currently focusing on the content. Feel free to integrate in in your category template or parhaps place the detailed instructions elsewhere and merely link to them from the undecided cats. -- Slaunger 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done Image vs. images, and other details

  1. Should we drop the plural? COM:FPC did awhile ago and caused somewhat of a mess we're still working on cleaning up. OTOH, COM:QIC still uses the plural. Personally, I think "valued image candidates" sounds better. It can be either, but I just want to make sure we get right the first time.
    Good point. As a non-native English speaker I am been very unsure about that, and somewhat randomly I ended up using the plural form (cuz' I saw that was used for QIs), but actually I prefer the singular(?) form just as you. But holy cow, that is some of a move to do. If we are to do that we should also move all the nom subpages so far. In that process I think we should create redirects from the old pages to the new ones such that existing links continue to work. I think I have written ....images... countless times in links in discussions and if these linaks are not going to be broken... Anyway if the page moves and redirects are done in one step, we can then adjust the links on the guidelines and in the templates which assume it is plural and so on. If we are to do this move, we should do it now and before june 1! -- Slaunger 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    note the COM:QIC page has multiple nominations all the time hence it used the plural Gnangarra 09:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    but isn't "Valued image candidates" plural too? -- Slaunger 10:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just to add my two cents. Each particular image will be a 'Valued Image'. As a collection they become plural, i.e., Valued Images. On the VIC page each candidate is a Valued Image Candidate, i.e., a candidate to become a Valued Image; as there will usually be many of them it's logical to use the plural, Valued Image Candidates. If you are going to use 'Valued Images Candidates' as the name, then you should also use the possessive apostrophe on the word Images, i.e., Valued Images' Candidates. As you said above, it's probably better to fix this before the project launches. --jjron 14:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Jjrons comment does seem to make sense. Could a native speaker confirm that? If yes, we gotta move now. Is that easier with admin tools or should i start right away? -- Slaunger 20:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, as a native speaker, I can confirm jjron is right. We could go with "Valued Images' candidates" implying the name of the project is "Valued Images" and these are our candidates, hence the possessive apostrophe. But I don't think that's what we want, so "Valued Image candidates" would be the proper English name. (Note the capitalization.) Don't worry about renaming; I can handle all that. Rocket000 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    OK, please do the move then (the sooner the better). Will old pages still exist as redirects? A lot of templates needs to be updated as well as internal links between VI pages and discussions if redirects are not done. Will histories and watch lists be preserved? While we are add, it rename {{VIC-candidate-images}} to {{VICs}}. -- Slaunger 14:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    ✓ Done by Rocket000 in a renaming tour de force! Thanks! -- Slaunger 13:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Capitalization of [Vv]alued [Ii]mages is inconsistent. I think it makes more sense to capitalize them but based on QI and FP, they shouldn't be. Give me a definite answer and I'll make them all the same.
    I think I started out using the capitalized format pretty consistently. Then ichael came along and build up the guideline pages using non-capitalized notation. I think that is the most used method right now. Personally, I have a slight affection for the Capitalized Format, but it is not something I feel deeply about, and I will rather leave it to you native speakers to settle. The easiest thing is probably to go non-capitalized. -- Slaunger 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    It should be capitalized because it's the name of a project and these aren't just any valued images, but official Valued images (the I really doesn't need capitalization when we're referring to actual images, only the project itself). But let's go with the lowercase version because of tradition and because it's what all the pages and cats use. Rocket000 11:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Should categories in Category:Valued images by month of promotion use the English month abbreviations? Numbers are more language neutral. (I know the rest is still English, but they can figure it out.)
    I had not thought about that, but that is actually a good idea. Exactly which format did you have in mind? Siomething like 2008-06 for June 2008? I could adjust the {{VI}} template (anyway I think I will change the third and fourth parameter of that one into a single timestamp and let {{#time:}}) do the job with formatting the right categories. -- Slaunger 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have adjusted {{VI}} assuming we go for a yyyy-mm notation instead. -- Slaunger 21:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    Good. That makes template building easier too. :) Rocket000 11:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. This page is getting due for an archiving.
    I just decreased the dwell time for inactive threads from 30 d to 20d before archiving. Hope that helps. -- Slaunger 19:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-Rocket000 02:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list/Archive_2&oldid=69873998"