![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are a lot of people calling VPC to die, and, as VPC is now, I suppose I am with them. However, I'm sure people will remember that, in the early days, I was certainly a supporter of the project. I think VPC in its current guise has failed- it has become a silver medal to FPC's gold medal, while the EV requirement (the "value" originally talked about) has become rather watered down. I'm not going to pretend the nominations I have made have been perfect- I've used VPC as a means to an end in more than a few cases. However, I think if VPC is to survive, we need to start over. We don't need a small change in process or some failed attempts at bringing more people to the project, we need to change the project to something a little more worthwhile.
My basic proposal is that VPC should be about irreplaceability. It should be about images that we are excited to have, and which are not likely to be replaced any time soon. The quality of the image itself shouldn't be a massive factor- provided it's not terrible, and provided the quality is high enough to contribute to the article, so be it. The requirement of an enormous EV should be obvious- I'd imagine a valued image that was not the lead image in an article was a rare thing indeed. Stability in an article would also be a must- weight would be given to higher quality articles, and weight would certainly be given to higher importance articles. Finally, a free license and impeccable sourcing information would be obvious. VPs should be those rare pictures you look at and think "wow, it's pretty awesome we have a picture of that". It shouldn't be about "that's a nice shot, but not great- whoever took that deserves a pat on the back!" VPs should be on a different scale to FPs- yes, there are some FPs that would warrant VP status, but there would be plenty that absolutely do not.
I appreciate that this proposal is rather drastic- for a start, it would involve "starting over" to the extent that it'd be quickest to just delist everything currently recognised as a valued picture and starting again. I also appreciate that this may not be popular because it removes the "silver medal" aspect that a few people like, but I think that without a shakeup of VPC to this extent, it is rightly doomed to fail. J Milburn ( talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I got Valued picture on the Signpost but only on the news bar on the right of the article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/WikiProject report. Im hoping it can bring people in. Spongie555 ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Valued pictures is looking for more editors to participate in the project to help cut down on nominations that have gone over the required 7 days. Thanks. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think it's moderately clear that the project is dying. This isn't like GAC, for instance, which is in dire need of more participants but still ticking over- someone coming here from a Signpost note will, I suspect, take a quick look and think "nah". J Milburn ( talk) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So is this project coming back alive now? ;) -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if a list of active VPC contributors is drawn up a message could be sent by MDB informing them of the HUGE backlog and considering that maybe 2/3 of these contributors will read said message then we might be able to reduce the backlog and make this project as successful as it was in its early days. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the current one is kind of lazy, just one or two olive branches over a black "VP" in a kind of plain font. I was going to use cowry shells since I think their historic usage as money was bigger than the clams, but I just liked the clam better. I was too lazy to draw or digitally draw the clam, so I just took a JPG of one and digitally cleaned it up, then I thought to keep an olive branch to reference the original logo, but that a real (or at least realistic) one would look better with the real clam. Does anyone think the logo needs text in it? It is used on the current logo, on Common's Quality and Valued image, even Wiki's logo, but it only favors one language at a time.. Unless maybe a "historic" language like Greek is used.. Yes, the theme is inspired by the bronze star and its variants. (I can remove the white background but don't know how to successfully upload an SVG). Don't be shy about suggestions or adding your own proposal.
-- I'ḏ ♥ One 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least check out the preview:
![]() | This is a valued picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the most valuable images on the English Wikipedia, adding significant encyclopedic value to its accompanying article. If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it. |
-- I'ḏ ♥ One 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
People, we have a serious problem - We have ~90 nominations open, but I only found one with the currently needed 4, just 4, needed votes to pass. We need a new vote method and to not be married to the idea of 4 votes, FPC didn't always have the 5 vote policy it has now.
My idea is "Vote by opposition/discussion"; Kinda sorta like what's done on Common's Valued and Quality images. Here's how it would work:
That's my idea (so far) and hopefully it could allow more images to get promoted, because we need more than just the 200 we have now. Also, maybe a VP should be allowed to keep its Valued status even if it gets promoted to FP. A bunch of other users have suggested that and I don't see why not, if it fits both shoes why not wear them both? Comments? Other ideas? -- I'ḏ ♥ One 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
About more than three-fourths of nominations are a simple landmark of Chicago that can be found in every city. Tony already creates up too many nominations whereas they are just making mess here and very few of them passes. Why not nominate more different landmarks from different locations rather than just sticking in Chicago, it will definitely make this project more successful. Such as: File:Uluru Panorama.jpg and File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
How can anyone close this: Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Port-Aux-Français. There are many which are older than a month and has a no deal of support, why don't you close them? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Some closers are closing 3 supports as promote due to lack of participation and others are still going by the strict guideline that requires four supports. We need to get all closers on the same page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I started the last discussion after closing 17 nominations. This time it was 36 nominations, all of them non-promotes. All 36 began in August, which means they've had a lot more than the 7 day nomination period to get votes. They didn't. Not many even had 3 votes, let alone the 4 (support) votes required for promotion. It has now been (two days short of) two months since we started discussing what to do with VPC. There seemed to be a consensus for deletion or marking historical, but this was never done. Some people proposed ideas that might increase participation. As far as I can tell, nothing of any significance has been done. Everything looks the same to me. And the same isn't good. Even if something was done that I missed, it hasn't made a difference. VPC is still a page full of nominations with no activity. In answer to my two-month-old question: yes, this project is dead. I plan to start an MfD in the next few days. If anyone has a better solution, feel free to propose it. But I doubt anything can revive this project now. Makeemlighter ( talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Any nomination which reaches a total of 3.5 should be promoted. The closer would have to total the point and this template should be changed to:
{{VPCresult|Not promoted|Points}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended valued picture nominations]]
{{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG|Points}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended valued picture nominations]]
All nominations will get 15 days time and if one has got 2.5/3 points they should get 5 more days. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, we have a new a barnstar for VPC, Template:Valued Picture Barnstar. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought you guys were closing this place down. Now creating barnstars. Why the change? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got some ideas for the project, some which have been posted before. Hopefully we can find some sort of consensus :)
What do you think? Acather96 ( talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't find here any delist section? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
There are a lot of people calling VPC to die, and, as VPC is now, I suppose I am with them. However, I'm sure people will remember that, in the early days, I was certainly a supporter of the project. I think VPC in its current guise has failed- it has become a silver medal to FPC's gold medal, while the EV requirement (the "value" originally talked about) has become rather watered down. I'm not going to pretend the nominations I have made have been perfect- I've used VPC as a means to an end in more than a few cases. However, I think if VPC is to survive, we need to start over. We don't need a small change in process or some failed attempts at bringing more people to the project, we need to change the project to something a little more worthwhile.
My basic proposal is that VPC should be about irreplaceability. It should be about images that we are excited to have, and which are not likely to be replaced any time soon. The quality of the image itself shouldn't be a massive factor- provided it's not terrible, and provided the quality is high enough to contribute to the article, so be it. The requirement of an enormous EV should be obvious- I'd imagine a valued image that was not the lead image in an article was a rare thing indeed. Stability in an article would also be a must- weight would be given to higher quality articles, and weight would certainly be given to higher importance articles. Finally, a free license and impeccable sourcing information would be obvious. VPs should be those rare pictures you look at and think "wow, it's pretty awesome we have a picture of that". It shouldn't be about "that's a nice shot, but not great- whoever took that deserves a pat on the back!" VPs should be on a different scale to FPs- yes, there are some FPs that would warrant VP status, but there would be plenty that absolutely do not.
I appreciate that this proposal is rather drastic- for a start, it would involve "starting over" to the extent that it'd be quickest to just delist everything currently recognised as a valued picture and starting again. I also appreciate that this may not be popular because it removes the "silver medal" aspect that a few people like, but I think that without a shakeup of VPC to this extent, it is rightly doomed to fail. J Milburn ( talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I got Valued picture on the Signpost but only on the news bar on the right of the article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/WikiProject report. Im hoping it can bring people in. Spongie555 ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Valued pictures is looking for more editors to participate in the project to help cut down on nominations that have gone over the required 7 days. Thanks. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think it's moderately clear that the project is dying. This isn't like GAC, for instance, which is in dire need of more participants but still ticking over- someone coming here from a Signpost note will, I suspect, take a quick look and think "nah". J Milburn ( talk) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So is this project coming back alive now? ;) -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if a list of active VPC contributors is drawn up a message could be sent by MDB informing them of the HUGE backlog and considering that maybe 2/3 of these contributors will read said message then we might be able to reduce the backlog and make this project as successful as it was in its early days. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the current one is kind of lazy, just one or two olive branches over a black "VP" in a kind of plain font. I was going to use cowry shells since I think their historic usage as money was bigger than the clams, but I just liked the clam better. I was too lazy to draw or digitally draw the clam, so I just took a JPG of one and digitally cleaned it up, then I thought to keep an olive branch to reference the original logo, but that a real (or at least realistic) one would look better with the real clam. Does anyone think the logo needs text in it? It is used on the current logo, on Common's Quality and Valued image, even Wiki's logo, but it only favors one language at a time.. Unless maybe a "historic" language like Greek is used.. Yes, the theme is inspired by the bronze star and its variants. (I can remove the white background but don't know how to successfully upload an SVG). Don't be shy about suggestions or adding your own proposal.
-- I'ḏ ♥ One 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least check out the preview:
![]() | This is a valued picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the most valuable images on the English Wikipedia, adding significant encyclopedic value to its accompanying article. If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it. |
-- I'ḏ ♥ One 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
People, we have a serious problem - We have ~90 nominations open, but I only found one with the currently needed 4, just 4, needed votes to pass. We need a new vote method and to not be married to the idea of 4 votes, FPC didn't always have the 5 vote policy it has now.
My idea is "Vote by opposition/discussion"; Kinda sorta like what's done on Common's Valued and Quality images. Here's how it would work:
That's my idea (so far) and hopefully it could allow more images to get promoted, because we need more than just the 200 we have now. Also, maybe a VP should be allowed to keep its Valued status even if it gets promoted to FP. A bunch of other users have suggested that and I don't see why not, if it fits both shoes why not wear them both? Comments? Other ideas? -- I'ḏ ♥ One 21:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
About more than three-fourths of nominations are a simple landmark of Chicago that can be found in every city. Tony already creates up too many nominations whereas they are just making mess here and very few of them passes. Why not nominate more different landmarks from different locations rather than just sticking in Chicago, it will definitely make this project more successful. Such as: File:Uluru Panorama.jpg and File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 02:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
How can anyone close this: Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Port-Aux-Français. There are many which are older than a month and has a no deal of support, why don't you close them? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Some closers are closing 3 supports as promote due to lack of participation and others are still going by the strict guideline that requires four supports. We need to get all closers on the same page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I started the last discussion after closing 17 nominations. This time it was 36 nominations, all of them non-promotes. All 36 began in August, which means they've had a lot more than the 7 day nomination period to get votes. They didn't. Not many even had 3 votes, let alone the 4 (support) votes required for promotion. It has now been (two days short of) two months since we started discussing what to do with VPC. There seemed to be a consensus for deletion or marking historical, but this was never done. Some people proposed ideas that might increase participation. As far as I can tell, nothing of any significance has been done. Everything looks the same to me. And the same isn't good. Even if something was done that I missed, it hasn't made a difference. VPC is still a page full of nominations with no activity. In answer to my two-month-old question: yes, this project is dead. I plan to start an MfD in the next few days. If anyone has a better solution, feel free to propose it. But I doubt anything can revive this project now. Makeemlighter ( talk) 08:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Any nomination which reaches a total of 3.5 should be promoted. The closer would have to total the point and this template should be changed to:
{{VPCresult|Not promoted|Points}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended valued picture nominations]]
{{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG|Points}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended valued picture nominations]]
All nominations will get 15 days time and if one has got 2.5/3 points they should get 5 more days. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 03:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, we have a new a barnstar for VPC, Template:Valued Picture Barnstar. -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought you guys were closing this place down. Now creating barnstars. Why the change? -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I've got some ideas for the project, some which have been posted before. Hopefully we can find some sort of consensus :)
What do you think? Acather96 ( talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't find here any delist section? -- Extra 999 ( Contact me + contribs) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)