![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
OK, so when I was putting the currently promoted images into the gallery I talked about above, I got to thinking that a lot of them were in more than one article and I had to decide which one I considered them most encyclopaedic for. I have then had a look through past and current nominations and noticed a bit of theme - there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on images having good EV for one article, low EV for another, etc.
Since our primary criterion here is EV, I think it should both OBVIOUS to both nominator and voters which article the image has outstanding EV for (it may still contribute to other articles, but should be ESPECIALLY good in one), e.g., for my Jeff Hardy image I would obviously say Jeff Hardy, Wadester's White House image would most likely be White House, the windmill shot would be Fabyan Windmill, etc.
I therefore propose changing the nomination template from saying Articles this image appears in (as taken from FPC) to something along the lines of Article for which this image displays outstanding encyclopaedic value. That would then also simplify the 'one month' criteria as we would only need to check for its presence in that one article for the month. If the nominator gets it wrong on which article, then bad luck, the EV obviously can't have been as high as they thought. As I said above it can still be in more than one article, but the nominator just picks the best (as a side bonus it may help to cut down on article spamming by people trying to 'increase' EV).
Feedback? -- jjron ( talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. In an effort to increase VPC's visibility, I created an infobox! You can put it on your userpage by copying and pasting {{User:Intothewoods29/vpcbox}}. Any other efforts to advertise VPC would be helpful too. Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Vote now on Wikipedia's most valued pictures! |
After seeing the debate above about galleries or categories I was thinking, maybe we could add another requirement in the nomination template which would require the nominator to suggest a category the image should be placed in if successfully passed as a VP. A bot could then close the nomination and add the image to the category. We would first have to create a list of possible categories of course. -- Muhammad (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Bot closing would be very useful, especially with the categorizing. Elucidate ( light up) 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Should we postpone the nomination until we confirm that someone can make the bot? Zoo Fari 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If this program is going to become a ghetto to shunt historic material away from Wikipedia's main page, then it may do considerably more harm than good. Durova Charge! 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, two different FPCs of the Wounded Knee massacre were open at the same time. One was almost exactly the same dimensions, file size, and quality as this featured picture which was promoted less than two years ago. The other candidate has 50 times greater file size and was a careful restoration. Nonetheless, one valued picture enthusiast ignored the lower quality image and campaigned to get the better one disqualified for FP--due to technical limitations that could not be surmounted with nineteenth century technology. When made aware that both candidacies exist, he continued to ignore the lower resolution one and redoubled his efforts to undermine the candidacy for the higher quality one. Effectively, that moves the goalposts so far that no image of an important historic event would ever reach Wikipedia's main page.
Aggressive 'recruitment' efforts for VP are attempting to revamp longstanding FP standards, which were already rising due to better quality material. The effects of that VP recruitment effort are pernicious. Last year I persuaded the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to release a high resolution image of the final days at the Warsaw Ghetto. A major reason they agreed to release the material was the possibility of a turn on Wikipedia's main page. A group of editors are negotiating with other great museums and archives to gain access to high resolution digitized versions of other valuable material. If VP becomes a ghetto to shunt that material away from FP consideration, then VP will seriously impede Wikipedia's access to valuable images. This program is a solution in search of a problem, and since it can find no real problem it is creating one.
Durova
Charge!
18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
First, by what you have been commenting about, I believe you are saying that Featured Pictures is a more stronger, competitive project than Valued pictures. Though I may be wrong or right, I must say that both are equal and should not be competitive, because what I am seeing, people are preferring FP. That is not the case. However, if you do think so, then consider adding VP to the main page.
But now, on the other hand, why was Valued Pictures created? Nominators at FP are nominating valuable images that I believe should be Valued pictures and not FP. Read the following, which is directly from the first sentence in the Featured Pictures main page:
So basically my point here is that I believe FP is for stunning, high quality images with beauty and impressive and VP is for images that are educational despite its quality. I never read in the FP criteria that an educational image may be supported just because of its value without the requirements of quality. That is why I prefer some images in Valued Pictures. So for those who say that I became aware that now both candidacies exist and trying to eliminate images from FP, don't comment on my actions because they appear to be false.
Now, for Valued images. Personally, I think 3/4 of the images already promoted should not be part of Valued Images. Below, I have expressed what I personally think:
Now, I know that the VP mentions that the images there are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by providing information relevant to a particular topic. I don't support this statement for the same reason I expressed above.
I didn't write this to provoke anything or anyone, and I know that I kind of got off topic with the Valued Picture conclusion (I know this belongs in that project talk page). But I just wanted to point that out to you. Even though you may not agree, from this moment and on, I will not comment anymore about the relationship between Valued Pictures and Featured Pictures. I'm a big fan of both. Zoo Fari 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia valued pictures project is modeled after the Commons valued images project with two important exceptions:
The main disadvantage to the Commons valued picture program is that some editors at that site have abused it as an excuse to oppose nearly all historic featured picture candidates. It has become much harder to get vintage material onto the main page there, which in turn makes it harder to persuade curators to release more material in digital form. So long as English Wikipedia featured pictures did not suffer the same prejudicial dynamic, that obstacle was not a serious one.
Zoofari has yet to articulate any reason why he continues to ignore this featured picture candidate and insists upon undermining this one. He puts forward a ' separate but equal' rationale despite the fact that featured pictures run on the site's main page while valued pictures sit at the back of the bus. The Wounded Knee massacre was an ethnic slaughter that occurred the same decade as Plessy v. Ferguson established segregation in the United States. During the month when the country inaugurates its first black president, there is an irony to this parallel--a very distasteful irony. Zoofari's reasoning would marginalize important subjects such as the history of racism, and would seriously hamper efforts to gain access to more archives. That means global archives; so long as our best sources remain American it is very difficult to counter systemic bias. We're working to change that; please don't create new setbacks.
I would nominate this process for deletion before I see that happen. English Wikipedia valued pictures has all the shortcomings of Commons valued images and none of its advantages. Durova Charge! 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to populate VP with more material,
Okay you guys... FIRST of all, there are several VPCs that have no votes yet, so we (meaning you who is reading this) work on those before/in addition arguing.
Second, in response to ZooFari, I believe that the purpose that VPC was started was to reward the hard work of editors who take and upload pictures that fulfill the EV part of the FP requirements but fails on quality grounds. It was not, to my knowledge, simply a bureaucratic process for identifying very rare pictures, even though very rare pictures do have an exceptional amount of EV. In addition, because of the sub-quality status of the VP criteria, this project is less important than FPC. If there is still debate about it, we can always take a straw poll of FPC and VPC regulars to clear that up.
Thirdly, in response to Durova, please don't throw around numerous threats of MfD before VPC "turns into a ghetto" like Commons (which, hopefully it never does).
Let's see what happens and use Commons as an example of what obviously to avoid. Also please don't bring emotionally-charged accusations of intolerance and analogies to segregation - it only makes things worse. (By the by, your Wounded Knee nomination on FPC has double the number of supports to opposes, so it has a good chance of passing still. :)
Now get out there and !vote! And smile! Wikipedia is
FUN! :)
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So, per this vote, the image for the VPC templates will be File:ENWP VP Logo.svg!!!! It was really, really close, but this one had one more vote than the second place image. Anyway, happy editing! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia. |
WOOHOOOOOO! (Oh wait... I have no VPs :( Intothewoods29 ( talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
All of the nominations on the VPC page need one or more votes. A few have none, and one or two are one support away from passing. Any assistance would be very much appreciated!
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: I moved this into a separate heading since it wasn't getting much response, and I think it's an important subject to discuss. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
After a quick glance at this talk page, I didn't notice anyone bring up what I've been thinking. I assumed that a "Valued Picture" was one that is used in many ways and has exceptional EV to the overall project, and definitely outstanding EV in one or more articles. That is why I nominated my White House photo. It is the infobox photo of White House and is used in many other articles (and the White House template). So what I'm getting at is that I don't think an image should be valued unless it has multiple places of use, at least a couple of which have exceptional EV in their respective articles. In line with the suggestions above, I think that:
I'm worried that any image that's in an infobox (or even not, as we've seen already) could become a valued image. I'm also concerned that almost any reasonable-quality image that's not an FP could pass as VP in the current system. Thoughts? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so now we have a more distinct VP insignia -
. However I've just noticed that the same insignia is being used in the VP candidate template. Should we create an alternate version for the VPC, like the FPC 'broken' FP star -
. Perhaps even simply change the VP text to say VPC? --
jjron (
talk)
15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Zoo Fari 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
One week elapsed; Option one chosen This will now be updated in the template page. Zoo Fari 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that many people have many different opinions on how VPC should work. There have been discussions on technical quality, encyclopedic value, and size requirements, but none of these discussions have led to changes (or clarifications) in the VPC Criteria. Because of this, everyone seems to have a relatively different idea of what a VP is. Here are some things I've noticed:
Thanks for reading. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Augustine Volcano Jan 12 2006 edited-1.jpg has been removed from its article and is now an orphan. Oddly enough, it was the editor that nominated it for VPC that has removed it from the article. What happens now? Do we auto delist? There is no actual delist process on the VPC page. -- jjron ( talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I was closing up some promoted images and I noticed that the template is not displayed in commons, as the template is put in the Wikipedia file page. Shouldn't it be displayed there like all the other featured templates? Perhaps a template at commons? Zoo Fari 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the diff of when the image was added in the nomination might aid reviewers in checking the one month requirement. Noodle snacks ( talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It is particularly pertinent for diagrams but the criteria should probably say something about citing references for numbers and so on used as the basis of diagrams. This would ensure diagrams meet similar guidelines to article text. Noodle snacks ( talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The recent VPC of Beverly Eckert admittedly didn't meet the time requirements in its respective articles, but I wonder if we can make exceptions for outstanding circumstances. This is undoubtedly an outstanding circumstance. The image is the main photo of Beverly Eckert, and will most likely never be removed. In addition, I can't see it being taken out of Continental Connection Flight 3407. If it were removed from either, I would honestly re-add it because I think it belongs in both places. Not wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it fair to allow a photo through here if a consensus is met to allow it to? If the nominator can offer compelling reasons for current-event-type images, shouldn't we allow them? I think this image is too important to not let it through now. Just my opinion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone else still out there?
I haven't seen a vote on a nom since 22 Feb (other than some I did yesterday), almost a week. Also did a mass closing last night, as that hadn't been happening, but many noms simply had insufficient votes rather than failing due to being opposed.
I guess the question is, are VP and VPC still a going concern? -- jjron ( talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A number of debates have been closed as not promoted due to the fact that there weren't enough comments- well, there aren't many people active here, and, if you look at the comparable process (this is to FP what GA is to FA) there is not voting, there is (theoretically) just a yes/no promotion. So, how about this- if there is an image that has gone for the whole seven days without comment, and the closer agrees that it meets the criteria, it can be promoted. If the closer does not agree, they can oppose, and wait for the next closer to come along and close the debate. This would prevent valuable images slipping through the net because of lack of comments, and would also allow a build-up of images, even if there are only a few commenting. J Milburn ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel the reverse: let the assumption be the image does not qualify as a VP. Reasons:
If I were to put this project on a graph showing activity, it would show an enormous decreasing slope. This isn't good. First, the project was lacking votes. Now, it appears that nominations are decreasing as well, probably because the lack of votes from past nominations. According to my calculations, inferences, and analysis, I assume there are causes for this (I work a lot in solving). Here are my inferences:
These MAY NOT be true facts, these are only my inferences based on trends! Therefore, people will not always agree!
This is all I got. Maybe this will make you think on how to improve, even if not accurate. If you have a suggestion, please share! If you think one of the above statements is missing something or have a rejection towards it, please share it. I only created this to share with you to see how VP can be improved. Zoo Fari 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets have a vote to get rid of the time limit. Its not a bad idea, but its really hurting the number of nominations and is what is killing the VP project in my view. So support or oppose:
No consensus on the issue. Seems the one-month will stay. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If the image is from commons, how do we handle step three of the nomination procedure where one adds {{VPC|title}} to the image?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please consider voting in these two noms. One only needs another support to pass:
Thanks, ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk»
15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
VPC seems to be stabilizing. I'm closing far fewer "no consensus" and "no quorum" nominations, which is good. But there are some that do close as such, so please make sure to comment on as many nominations as possible. I wonder if there's a way to get this project more attention. There's currently a discussion going on about the {{ Assessments}} template, which may include en:wiki VP, even though it's a Commons template (still under discussion). But, if I may be so bold, what if we proposed hosting a daily image on the Main Page? We are on the verge of 50 VPs, almost two months' worth. Might be smart to wait for 70 or so first (don't want to run out!). But maybe FPs are so notable (other than quality) because the Main Page offers a direct link to FPs. But maybe I'm being too idealistic. Thoughts? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Valued pictures really wouldn't be welcome on the main page (or fit in...) but encouraging their use on portals (as well as featured pictures- I already do this on Portal:Fungi- maybe someone should go around and add a few?) as well as spamming links here whereever appropriate would be great. It'd be brilliant to see this project flourish. J Milburn ( talk) 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Valued Pictures now has 50 images in its collection. The 50th Valued Picture is Common Brushtail Possum, by Noodle snacks. Thanks to everyone for taking part and make sure to nominate more! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
See WP:FCDW/ValuedPictures. Scheduled to run in the Signpost on the 20th, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. MER-C 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't seem to have an "edit" option to add a {{VPC|title}} template to the
DannyMagen nomination.
Cheers,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
17:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I began to feel a bit frustrated nominating images. Two of my nom have already failed because of the lack of supports (most only had two support !votes). Can or should something be done to get more people reviewing? Thoughts— Chris! c t 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Should VP be a consideration to be included as part of the Picture of the day project? It only consists of FPs. Maybe having VPs too may help inspire more voters to come here. Zoo Fari 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a banner that might appeal more users to our project. Please feel free to use it in your userspaces. Zoo Fari 01:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Valued pictures/banner}}
I've created a new template for old VPC candidates {{ VPCold}}, based on the FPC version, {{ FPCold}}. I think it would help bring more exposure to the VPC process. Syntax is the same as FPCold. So, for example, on File:Butterfly portrait.jpg, which was nominated in April 2009, you'd use:
{{VPCold|File:Butterfly portrait.jpg|April 2009}}
Radiant chains ( talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
VP is not going too well. I was wondering, maybe the VP template is not too appealing? Zoo Fari 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved this discussion here. Original post here Zoo Fari 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The heading on the page is unclear: if a picture has been selected as a Featured Picture, is it then ineligible to become a Valued Picture? Seems to me like that removes the best pool of candidates. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since VP is heading to a stay, I might as well pull this out now. I have decided to create my own little criteria regardless of the original's broad critiques. I'm going to have to be more strict on the candidates. Sorry, but I just think the original is pulling in random nominations and failed FPCs and regulars are supporting without thinking about it much. The goal is to make VPC more alive, but not this way. Not by taking advantage of nominations and supporting them just to populate VP. I hope and look forward to criteria changes in the future... Zoo Fari 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the difficulty of getting enough votes to pass both here and at FPC, I would like to propose lowering the minimum number of votes here to three until further notice (or until someone proposes raising it again with evidence that it is no longer a problem). Some good VPCs have fallen thru the cracks recently because of the 4-vote minimum. Thanks for your consideration and input.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
OK, so when I was putting the currently promoted images into the gallery I talked about above, I got to thinking that a lot of them were in more than one article and I had to decide which one I considered them most encyclopaedic for. I have then had a look through past and current nominations and noticed a bit of theme - there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on images having good EV for one article, low EV for another, etc.
Since our primary criterion here is EV, I think it should both OBVIOUS to both nominator and voters which article the image has outstanding EV for (it may still contribute to other articles, but should be ESPECIALLY good in one), e.g., for my Jeff Hardy image I would obviously say Jeff Hardy, Wadester's White House image would most likely be White House, the windmill shot would be Fabyan Windmill, etc.
I therefore propose changing the nomination template from saying Articles this image appears in (as taken from FPC) to something along the lines of Article for which this image displays outstanding encyclopaedic value. That would then also simplify the 'one month' criteria as we would only need to check for its presence in that one article for the month. If the nominator gets it wrong on which article, then bad luck, the EV obviously can't have been as high as they thought. As I said above it can still be in more than one article, but the nominator just picks the best (as a side bonus it may help to cut down on article spamming by people trying to 'increase' EV).
Feedback? -- jjron ( talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Howdy. In an effort to increase VPC's visibility, I created an infobox! You can put it on your userpage by copying and pasting {{User:Intothewoods29/vpcbox}}. Any other efforts to advertise VPC would be helpful too. Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Vote now on Wikipedia's most valued pictures! |
After seeing the debate above about galleries or categories I was thinking, maybe we could add another requirement in the nomination template which would require the nominator to suggest a category the image should be placed in if successfully passed as a VP. A bot could then close the nomination and add the image to the category. We would first have to create a list of possible categories of course. -- Muhammad (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. Bot closing would be very useful, especially with the categorizing. Elucidate ( light up) 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Should we postpone the nomination until we confirm that someone can make the bot? Zoo Fari 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
If this program is going to become a ghetto to shunt historic material away from Wikipedia's main page, then it may do considerably more harm than good. Durova Charge! 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, two different FPCs of the Wounded Knee massacre were open at the same time. One was almost exactly the same dimensions, file size, and quality as this featured picture which was promoted less than two years ago. The other candidate has 50 times greater file size and was a careful restoration. Nonetheless, one valued picture enthusiast ignored the lower quality image and campaigned to get the better one disqualified for FP--due to technical limitations that could not be surmounted with nineteenth century technology. When made aware that both candidacies exist, he continued to ignore the lower resolution one and redoubled his efforts to undermine the candidacy for the higher quality one. Effectively, that moves the goalposts so far that no image of an important historic event would ever reach Wikipedia's main page.
Aggressive 'recruitment' efforts for VP are attempting to revamp longstanding FP standards, which were already rising due to better quality material. The effects of that VP recruitment effort are pernicious. Last year I persuaded the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to release a high resolution image of the final days at the Warsaw Ghetto. A major reason they agreed to release the material was the possibility of a turn on Wikipedia's main page. A group of editors are negotiating with other great museums and archives to gain access to high resolution digitized versions of other valuable material. If VP becomes a ghetto to shunt that material away from FP consideration, then VP will seriously impede Wikipedia's access to valuable images. This program is a solution in search of a problem, and since it can find no real problem it is creating one.
Durova
Charge!
18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
First, by what you have been commenting about, I believe you are saying that Featured Pictures is a more stronger, competitive project than Valued pictures. Though I may be wrong or right, I must say that both are equal and should not be competitive, because what I am seeing, people are preferring FP. That is not the case. However, if you do think so, then consider adding VP to the main page.
But now, on the other hand, why was Valued Pictures created? Nominators at FP are nominating valuable images that I believe should be Valued pictures and not FP. Read the following, which is directly from the first sentence in the Featured Pictures main page:
So basically my point here is that I believe FP is for stunning, high quality images with beauty and impressive and VP is for images that are educational despite its quality. I never read in the FP criteria that an educational image may be supported just because of its value without the requirements of quality. That is why I prefer some images in Valued Pictures. So for those who say that I became aware that now both candidacies exist and trying to eliminate images from FP, don't comment on my actions because they appear to be false.
Now, for Valued images. Personally, I think 3/4 of the images already promoted should not be part of Valued Images. Below, I have expressed what I personally think:
Now, I know that the VP mentions that the images there are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by providing information relevant to a particular topic. I don't support this statement for the same reason I expressed above.
I didn't write this to provoke anything or anyone, and I know that I kind of got off topic with the Valued Picture conclusion (I know this belongs in that project talk page). But I just wanted to point that out to you. Even though you may not agree, from this moment and on, I will not comment anymore about the relationship between Valued Pictures and Featured Pictures. I'm a big fan of both. Zoo Fari 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia valued pictures project is modeled after the Commons valued images project with two important exceptions:
The main disadvantage to the Commons valued picture program is that some editors at that site have abused it as an excuse to oppose nearly all historic featured picture candidates. It has become much harder to get vintage material onto the main page there, which in turn makes it harder to persuade curators to release more material in digital form. So long as English Wikipedia featured pictures did not suffer the same prejudicial dynamic, that obstacle was not a serious one.
Zoofari has yet to articulate any reason why he continues to ignore this featured picture candidate and insists upon undermining this one. He puts forward a ' separate but equal' rationale despite the fact that featured pictures run on the site's main page while valued pictures sit at the back of the bus. The Wounded Knee massacre was an ethnic slaughter that occurred the same decade as Plessy v. Ferguson established segregation in the United States. During the month when the country inaugurates its first black president, there is an irony to this parallel--a very distasteful irony. Zoofari's reasoning would marginalize important subjects such as the history of racism, and would seriously hamper efforts to gain access to more archives. That means global archives; so long as our best sources remain American it is very difficult to counter systemic bias. We're working to change that; please don't create new setbacks.
I would nominate this process for deletion before I see that happen. English Wikipedia valued pictures has all the shortcomings of Commons valued images and none of its advantages. Durova Charge! 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to populate VP with more material,
Okay you guys... FIRST of all, there are several VPCs that have no votes yet, so we (meaning you who is reading this) work on those before/in addition arguing.
Second, in response to ZooFari, I believe that the purpose that VPC was started was to reward the hard work of editors who take and upload pictures that fulfill the EV part of the FP requirements but fails on quality grounds. It was not, to my knowledge, simply a bureaucratic process for identifying very rare pictures, even though very rare pictures do have an exceptional amount of EV. In addition, because of the sub-quality status of the VP criteria, this project is less important than FPC. If there is still debate about it, we can always take a straw poll of FPC and VPC regulars to clear that up.
Thirdly, in response to Durova, please don't throw around numerous threats of MfD before VPC "turns into a ghetto" like Commons (which, hopefully it never does).
Let's see what happens and use Commons as an example of what obviously to avoid. Also please don't bring emotionally-charged accusations of intolerance and analogies to segregation - it only makes things worse. (By the by, your Wounded Knee nomination on FPC has double the number of supports to opposes, so it has a good chance of passing still. :)
Now get out there and !vote! And smile! Wikipedia is
FUN! :)
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So, per this vote, the image for the VPC templates will be File:ENWP VP Logo.svg!!!! It was really, really close, but this one had one more vote than the second place image. Anyway, happy editing! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia. |
WOOHOOOOOO! (Oh wait... I have no VPs :( Intothewoods29 ( talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
All of the nominations on the VPC page need one or more votes. A few have none, and one or two are one support away from passing. Any assistance would be very much appreciated!
Intothewoods29 (
talk)
23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Note: I moved this into a separate heading since it wasn't getting much response, and I think it's an important subject to discuss. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
After a quick glance at this talk page, I didn't notice anyone bring up what I've been thinking. I assumed that a "Valued Picture" was one that is used in many ways and has exceptional EV to the overall project, and definitely outstanding EV in one or more articles. That is why I nominated my White House photo. It is the infobox photo of White House and is used in many other articles (and the White House template). So what I'm getting at is that I don't think an image should be valued unless it has multiple places of use, at least a couple of which have exceptional EV in their respective articles. In line with the suggestions above, I think that:
I'm worried that any image that's in an infobox (or even not, as we've seen already) could become a valued image. I'm also concerned that almost any reasonable-quality image that's not an FP could pass as VP in the current system. Thoughts? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, so now we have a more distinct VP insignia -
. However I've just noticed that the same insignia is being used in the VP candidate template. Should we create an alternate version for the VPC, like the FPC 'broken' FP star -
. Perhaps even simply change the VP text to say VPC? --
jjron (
talk)
15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Zoo Fari 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
One week elapsed; Option one chosen This will now be updated in the template page. Zoo Fari 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems that many people have many different opinions on how VPC should work. There have been discussions on technical quality, encyclopedic value, and size requirements, but none of these discussions have led to changes (or clarifications) in the VPC Criteria. Because of this, everyone seems to have a relatively different idea of what a VP is. Here are some things I've noticed:
Thanks for reading. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Augustine Volcano Jan 12 2006 edited-1.jpg has been removed from its article and is now an orphan. Oddly enough, it was the editor that nominated it for VPC that has removed it from the article. What happens now? Do we auto delist? There is no actual delist process on the VPC page. -- jjron ( talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I was closing up some promoted images and I noticed that the template is not displayed in commons, as the template is put in the Wikipedia file page. Shouldn't it be displayed there like all the other featured templates? Perhaps a template at commons? Zoo Fari 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the diff of when the image was added in the nomination might aid reviewers in checking the one month requirement. Noodle snacks ( talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
It is particularly pertinent for diagrams but the criteria should probably say something about citing references for numbers and so on used as the basis of diagrams. This would ensure diagrams meet similar guidelines to article text. Noodle snacks ( talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The recent VPC of Beverly Eckert admittedly didn't meet the time requirements in its respective articles, but I wonder if we can make exceptions for outstanding circumstances. This is undoubtedly an outstanding circumstance. The image is the main photo of Beverly Eckert, and will most likely never be removed. In addition, I can't see it being taken out of Continental Connection Flight 3407. If it were removed from either, I would honestly re-add it because I think it belongs in both places. Not wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it fair to allow a photo through here if a consensus is met to allow it to? If the nominator can offer compelling reasons for current-event-type images, shouldn't we allow them? I think this image is too important to not let it through now. Just my opinion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone else still out there?
I haven't seen a vote on a nom since 22 Feb (other than some I did yesterday), almost a week. Also did a mass closing last night, as that hadn't been happening, but many noms simply had insufficient votes rather than failing due to being opposed.
I guess the question is, are VP and VPC still a going concern? -- jjron ( talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
A number of debates have been closed as not promoted due to the fact that there weren't enough comments- well, there aren't many people active here, and, if you look at the comparable process (this is to FP what GA is to FA) there is not voting, there is (theoretically) just a yes/no promotion. So, how about this- if there is an image that has gone for the whole seven days without comment, and the closer agrees that it meets the criteria, it can be promoted. If the closer does not agree, they can oppose, and wait for the next closer to come along and close the debate. This would prevent valuable images slipping through the net because of lack of comments, and would also allow a build-up of images, even if there are only a few commenting. J Milburn ( talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel the reverse: let the assumption be the image does not qualify as a VP. Reasons:
If I were to put this project on a graph showing activity, it would show an enormous decreasing slope. This isn't good. First, the project was lacking votes. Now, it appears that nominations are decreasing as well, probably because the lack of votes from past nominations. According to my calculations, inferences, and analysis, I assume there are causes for this (I work a lot in solving). Here are my inferences:
These MAY NOT be true facts, these are only my inferences based on trends! Therefore, people will not always agree!
This is all I got. Maybe this will make you think on how to improve, even if not accurate. If you have a suggestion, please share! If you think one of the above statements is missing something or have a rejection towards it, please share it. I only created this to share with you to see how VP can be improved. Zoo Fari 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
( talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets have a vote to get rid of the time limit. Its not a bad idea, but its really hurting the number of nominations and is what is killing the VP project in my view. So support or oppose:
No consensus on the issue. Seems the one-month will stay. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
If the image is from commons, how do we handle step three of the nomination procedure where one adds {{VPC|title}} to the image?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 06:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Please consider voting in these two noms. One only needs another support to pass:
Thanks, ~
ωαdεstεr16
«talk
stalk»
15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
VPC seems to be stabilizing. I'm closing far fewer "no consensus" and "no quorum" nominations, which is good. But there are some that do close as such, so please make sure to comment on as many nominations as possible. I wonder if there's a way to get this project more attention. There's currently a discussion going on about the {{ Assessments}} template, which may include en:wiki VP, even though it's a Commons template (still under discussion). But, if I may be so bold, what if we proposed hosting a daily image on the Main Page? We are on the verge of 50 VPs, almost two months' worth. Might be smart to wait for 70 or so first (don't want to run out!). But maybe FPs are so notable (other than quality) because the Main Page offers a direct link to FPs. But maybe I'm being too idealistic. Thoughts? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Valued pictures really wouldn't be welcome on the main page (or fit in...) but encouraging their use on portals (as well as featured pictures- I already do this on Portal:Fungi- maybe someone should go around and add a few?) as well as spamming links here whereever appropriate would be great. It'd be brilliant to see this project flourish. J Milburn ( talk) 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Valued Pictures now has 50 images in its collection. The 50th Valued Picture is Common Brushtail Possum, by Noodle snacks. Thanks to everyone for taking part and make sure to nominate more! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) |
See WP:FCDW/ValuedPictures. Scheduled to run in the Signpost on the 20th, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. MER-C 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't seem to have an "edit" option to add a {{VPC|title}} template to the
DannyMagen nomination.
Cheers,
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk
17:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I began to feel a bit frustrated nominating images. Two of my nom have already failed because of the lack of supports (most only had two support !votes). Can or should something be done to get more people reviewing? Thoughts— Chris! c t 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Should VP be a consideration to be included as part of the Picture of the day project? It only consists of FPs. Maybe having VPs too may help inspire more voters to come here. Zoo Fari 22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a banner that might appeal more users to our project. Please feel free to use it in your userspaces. Zoo Fari 01:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Valued pictures/banner}}
I've created a new template for old VPC candidates {{ VPCold}}, based on the FPC version, {{ FPCold}}. I think it would help bring more exposure to the VPC process. Syntax is the same as FPCold. So, for example, on File:Butterfly portrait.jpg, which was nominated in April 2009, you'd use:
{{VPCold|File:Butterfly portrait.jpg|April 2009}}
Radiant chains ( talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
VP is not going too well. I was wondering, maybe the VP template is not too appealing? Zoo Fari 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved this discussion here. Original post here Zoo Fari 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The heading on the page is unclear: if a picture has been selected as a Featured Picture, is it then ineligible to become a Valued Picture? Seems to me like that removes the best pool of candidates. — Goodtimber ( walk/ talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since VP is heading to a stay, I might as well pull this out now. I have decided to create my own little criteria regardless of the original's broad critiques. I'm going to have to be more strict on the candidates. Sorry, but I just think the original is pulling in random nominations and failed FPCs and regulars are supporting without thinking about it much. The goal is to make VPC more alive, but not this way. Not by taking advantage of nominations and supporting them just to populate VP. I hope and look forward to criteria changes in the future... Zoo Fari 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering the difficulty of getting enough votes to pass both here and at FPC, I would like to propose lowering the minimum number of votes here to three until further notice (or until someone proposes raising it again with evidence that it is no longer a problem). Some good VPCs have fallen thru the cracks recently because of the 4-vote minimum. Thanks for your consideration and input.