Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Time to start over? J Milburn's proposal

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)

  • Oppose seems to be the same consideration as Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates#Completely_shut_down_and_Mark_Historical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I like this idea, it would be something entirely different. I think the review process on this should be similar to how GA/FA's are reviewed, where we have a check list of things that must pass, and if all the checklists are met then it's promoted. This would involve making sure the sourcing and licencing is rock solid, that it's properly identified (not the wrong person, animal, plant, etc... which DOES happen). These pictures should be first and foremost irreplaceable, and if it's low resolution you need to demonstrate why we can't get a better scan of it, like original destroyed, or in private collection, or museum wants big $ for a high quality scan, that type of thing. These could be a level of recognition well beyond FP, it could be come a gallery of the images that best demonstrate why this encyclopedia is so valuable. I like the idea that it needs to be stable and prominently placed (doesn't HAVE to be lead image, but the "lead" image for the proper section of the article.) Having a requirement the picture needs to be on a high importance/developed article would be good too, I think. Although I think some clause should be that if it's a species (like say a mushroom, our favorite example) that if the irreplaceability of the image can be demonstrated (extinct, exceedingly rare, etc...) that the well developed article/high importance article requirement should be overlooked. Having a reasonably acceptable quality image of say a Lake Mackay Hare-wallaby even though it's a stub and unrated article that probably gets zero hits it would still be MASSIVELY valuable to the encyclopedia, imho. Any living species, person, etc.. would be VERY difficult to demonstrate it's irreplaceable. Might even just flat out exclude any picture of a living person, non-extinct species, modern still standing structure, etc.. unless you can prove that it's so exceedingly rare we may never get another picture of it, or it's critically endangered, or some other reason why what we have is probably all we'd ever expect to get. Anyway... I'll end this block of text... but I'm excited by a the idea. I don't think Tony quite gets it... — raekyt 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Raeky, that's exactly what I'm thinking, you've really understood my thoughts straight away. I completely agree with everything you've written. You mention that "if about a species", we could overlook the high importance/highly developed clause- I think this could be extended to other cases; for instance, highly inaccessible locations. Photographs of uninhabited islands hundreds of miles out to sea would fall under this category, I would say. J Milburn (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Remember the suggestion about merging VPC with Commons VIC, when both projects were being created? VIC is certainly not a second-class Commons FPC and is still working. Want to take a look ([1]? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay...but how will this project avoid the problems that VP has had? I can't see why people would participate in this more than they did in VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We have to generate enthusiasm from it from the other featured content people and wiki-projects I think. Having this tag on a picture in an article should be a prestigious award that is gives it a big leg up in say the GA/FA review. Without perceived value to the tag it's useless like the current VP tag. The tag would mean that the image has been reviewed and is something that the community should feel proud that we have, that it's a true gem that is irreplaceable. Any article that can spotlight such an image should benefit. IMHO. Thats the only way to keep this project from going down the tubes. — raekyt 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • There are already some regular participants, and, I'm sure, restarting the project will draw some more eyes (we could look into a feature in the Signpost to talk about the revamping, stuff like that). The point is though that raising the standards significantly will make this much more worthy of attention- this is something I would imagine people would be more willing to participate in. In any case, if we take Raeky's suggestion, we may not actually need that many people to be regular participants to keep it ticking over. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I would suggest though just for simplicity sake and archiving that we mark VP historical and create a whole new project, name and logo to go with this idea. That way historically we could go back and still view all these pages, or maybe someday in the future the value of this project could be established and restarted in conjunction with the new projects or whatever is active at that future date. — raekyt 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm proposing this as being closer to what VP should have been from the beginning, rather than as another nice project. Forming this separately would just cause even more angst. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I know you're not going to like it, but that idea isn't fully formed. Firstly, I add the point I made before about how rare content means just that, which also subsequently means that people would probably not use VPC more because of the somewhat unlikelihood of getting super-rare stuff like you say. Next, I keep saying it: VPC and FPC DO affect each other. Changing the definition and purpose of one will affect what people do on the other. There's nothing stopping anyone from bring a rare piece of media to either FPC or VPC as is, so there's really no point changing VPC in particular. For instance, I held this image to the same standards as any other image we would critique it on FPC, which should've meant it shouldn't have been promoted for not being super-perfect, but it did anyway. Seems its rarity and "wow" factor was enough after all, even though I suggested it to VPC with the similar idea to yours that, no, it's not perfect, but it's still amazing and rare. What does FPC become only and all 'valuable' imagery is brought here exclusively? A place just for photographers? Honestly I kind of just wish everyone would stop picking on VPC, if they don't like it they don't have to use it and it doesn't seem to me like VPC is hurting Wikipedia or anybody. If you want to oppose something for lacking value or nominate something because you think it does have a lot of value you don't need an entire overhaul in policy to do that, go right ahead. --I'ḏ♥One 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course the idea isn't fully formed- I've thrown it out here for discussion. Yes, super-rare stuff could currently be nominated at VPC, but what's the point? So it'll go in a gallery alongside (alright) pictures of birds that add (a little) to their respective articles? As I said, if VPC was to become what I suggest, a picture could be both a VP and an FP, or both, or neither. No one is "picking on" VPC, it's just most recognise that, in its current form, it has little to no value. J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above point, that one of the issues plaguing the project right now is a lack of involvement. Making things more difficult for the average person isn't going to increase participation. I understand the encyclopedic value of the pictures you are trying to promote, but reviewing them isn't anything that interests me, and it isn't anything the average person would have a shot at contributing to. The best way to generate involvement is to have people want their content recognized, and hope that they will help out with reviews and such in order to get other's contributions recognized. I think this proposal would recognize an important subset of pictures, but I think it would have the same issues or possibly worse regarding participation. Canada Hky (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Why dont we leave valued picture alone? Its not really dead beacuse we still have people voting and nominating. We just need people to vote but other then that we arnt really that dead. We have many nominations we just need to close or vote on them. Spongie555 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There's a fairly clear consensus that this project should not exist. Whether you like it or whether you'd like to sit here and continue running it is, frankly, irrelevant. I am proposing this as the kind of extreme overhaul that the project needs if it is to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Six for and six against is not a "fairly clear consensus" in my view. Neighter is there consensus among the supporters of closure that "this project should not exist". Labeling other peoples views as irrelevant is unpolite, to say the least. The project is not moving forward because the split, among those who want it GA-like and those who want it FA2 like, and lack of willingness to compromise, as well as the constant threats against the project which frankly, is very effective in demotivating people who actually wish to participate. Elekhh (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

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)

I tried discussing this, but was ignored. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
We got on the signpost newsbar again Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-13/WikiProject report. This time i didnt tell them they just added us. Spongie555 (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That's great! It doesn't seem to be helping us, though. Edge3 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ya it looks like its not doing much Spongie555 (talk) 22:34, 14 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)

You are pretty correct but try, maybe we catch up a few or just 1. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 00:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should close alot of the nominations. It gives a person visiting a look that VP is dead and no one is working. We have nominations almost 1 month old and thats bad Spongie555 (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If everyone agrees to close a few nominations, we can clear this backlog very quickly. Edge3 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
None will have problems if you close those fortnight-old with no-consensus. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont really like to close nominations as not promoted, i like to promote images but their are alot where you can close as not promoted if you want. 03:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Spongie555 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So is this project coming back alive now?  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

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)

Yeah, we know.. =( --I'ḏ♥One 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

New logo proposition

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.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

  1. Valued Picture
  2. Valued Picture Candidate
  3. VPC alternate
  4. Former Valued Picture or Candidate (if we ever start delisting I guess)
  5. Former VPoC alternate
  6. Former VPoC (top removed)
  7. Alternate

--I'ḏ♥One 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does the logo need an overhaul?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I just think it's kind of boring, it looks like it couldn't have taken more than a few minutes to put together, doesn't seem to be anything special, the olive branches are kind of cliche. I guess at full view it looks a bit more interesting, but the thumbnail not so much:
I'm thankful ZooFari made it so we could have something to use, but I think we can do better. --I'ḏ♥One 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
If the project is going to be refreshed and some rules changed, than is good to mark the event with a change of logo. And certainly the present logo can be improved. A consideration for the logo is to be recognisable at icon size, as Tony uses on his userpage . --Elekhh (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A seed would look better. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I shrunk and cropped them, it would probably look better at sub-icon size if I could upload them as SVG. You don't think it already looks kind of like a seed? --I'ḏ♥One 03:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it does but at small size and seeds would look better than these somehow. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least check out the preview:

--I'ḏ♥One 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It does strike me that worrying about the logo is hardly the most pressing issue for VPC at the moment... BencherliteTalk 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Still it would help. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New voting process needed ASAP

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:

  1. A nominated image gets 24 days (because it's 10 days plus 2 weeks) then the decision must be made.
  2. If the image is unopposed it gets promoted - This is considered "passively supported" (but of course regular supports are still allowed).
  3. If an image gets 4+ votes in 10 days it can be promoted and closed.
  4. If an image is opposed even once (assuming of course that the oppose is the only vote the image has received) by the time the 25 days are up it gets rejected (and I would encourage voters not to get too snippy because we don't want to deter people from coming back), but a third user and the nominator can refute that/those oppose(s). The burden then goes on the nominator and supporters to raise a better list of points than the opposed in determining if the image should be promoted or not, sort of a pros vs. cons thing.
  5. In the case of multiple votes we go with the 2/3 rule.

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)

All your ideas seem worthful to me. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Im not so crazy about the 24 days decision time. Also number 4 confuses me can you explain more? Spongie555 (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Extra. #4 is a scenario where a nomination is completely ignored save for 1 oppose attached to it; If no one refutes it that's like a "passive agreement" with that oppose vote, in this case this example nomination would be closed with a {{VPCresult|Not promoted| }} since no one seems to feel there's strong enough value in it to argue for it or promote it. The purpose of my idea here is to make use of the fact that people come to VPC, look at the nominations and don't write anything, simplification; If someone has a problem they should speak up. I originally picked 25 days, but I like 24 because it's easier to figure out that date. I don't like see our noms piling up like they are, we should keep it moving IMO, but how long do you think they should be opened for? --I'ḏ♥One 03:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand Number 4 now. But for the 24 days i think thats to much time it might start a pil up beacuse we get like 3-5 nominations a day. I think we should make it fast and quick. Also I think we should get rid of that belief that if you vote on a nomination you cant close it Spongie555 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I know ideally we're not supposed to because it looks like a conflict of interest and doesn't seem impartial, but it must be done, at least until participation picks up. I've closed a bunch of nominations I voted on, I just avoid closing my own nominations and ones where I would be the last voter. I think we should limit the number of days more when participation picks up, and don't forget that a supported enough image by my proposition could be closed in only 10 days. (And not to talk about users behind their backs, but like half the nominations we have are Tony's..) --I'ḏ♥One 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Look how lazy people are. --I'ḏ♥One 03:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
VP should have been deleted or marked historical after the lengthy discussion above. Participation almost certainly will not pick up, and any new procedures will only make things more confusing. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Theres alot of inactive wikiprojects but there still up but when it comes to VP people want to close to me it makes no sense. Also to get rid of the backlog we have now we should close nominations that have atleast 3 support votes and no opposes or concerns. It seems alot of nominations can only get 3 support votes but never reach 4. Spongie555 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Many get 3 votes but not 4, no opposes. But more than half of these votes and generally not strictly reviewed as in Commons. That's why I like Id's idea. But i have one question in mind: do we count nominator's vote? --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 06:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I usually count the nominators vote especially when it has 3 votes(not counting nominator). Spongie555 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Too much of Chicago

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)

Yes some people in other projects in Wikipedia might agree with cutting down Chicago related stuff. But I have to say that Chicago gives alot of good quality images and stuff. Also I been trying to nominate random stuff but i havnt been getting votes for any. Also those are good pictures you had for example. Actually these Chicago stuff have helped me learn about the city Spongie555 (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but I think Chicago is not the only place, VP is deeply rooted to it. Its okay that you have learnt much but about it, but VPC isn't made for that. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes VP needs other stuff then Chicago but no one is nominating anything. We did get alot of nominations about the Sydney Harbour Bridge but they look like they wont pass. Spongie555 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Review needed

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)

Can be renominated though. --Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


3 support promotes

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 think we should close them at 3 support till participation picks up beacuse if we don't close them at 3 then we would one promote like 5 nominations a month beacuse most have 3 support. Spongie555 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If so, somebody check the above posted nomination. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
First if we are going to do 3 support promos then we need to change the rule so other people who come to close nominations. I think we should start a vote. Spongie555 (talk) 02:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Streamlining the review process was always on the table, my only concern was that the criteria is not detailed enough. I think as a priority there should be more clarity established about what VPC is, in order to allow a more streamlined assessment. Now that VP is approaching 200 images, it might be time to implement this idea (points 1 and 3). If WP:VP? becomes more clear, than there will be less need to have lengthy discussions about the merits of each candidate. --Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead Project 2: The MfD

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)

Agreed. Action is needed. J Milburn (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont think we should close it. We are not really dead we are trying to get active but when we get like 5 nominations a day from Tony is hard to work with it. I think we should make VP like the Quality image on Commons(i mean the voting way) beacuse on Quality image on Commons you only need one person to review a nomination and promote it unless someone else opposses it would be better. Also i dont understand when it comes to VP people want to close it down but what about the other inactive WikiProjects? LAstly in the lastest unoffical vote their was no consensus ,Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates#Completely_shut_down_and_Mark_Historical Spongie555 (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that this isn't just underactive, its undefined and not particularly useful. The people who participate all seem to disagree as to what precisely it is, and the standards and rules that have been laid out seem to be, for the most part, ignored. The project is not recognised in any great way (basically, who cares if something's a VP? The only recognition I am aware of, some minimal portal usage and the recognition in the WikiCup, has come from me), and the majority of FPC regulars (FPC being the closest project on Wikipedia) have mostly shunned or actively opposed the project. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
VP does need to work on getting regonition. IF we could get VP more regonition it could help bring people. People need to know that there is something to get an image with high EV but not lower quality to get promoted. I have noticed only FP people are opposing this project. Spongie555 (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Only people at FPC care. You have said yourself that VPC has a lower EV requirement than FPC- where, precisely, does that leave the project? J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
VP is starting to get more active now but still needs work. Spongie555 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Spongie, I've started helping out as well. Acather96 (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposal

    • Support
  • 0.5 - Weak support
  • 1.0 - Support
  • 1.5 - Strong support
  • 2.0 - Strongest/Strongest possible support
    • Oppose
  • -0.5 - Weak oppose
  • -1.0 - Oppose
  • -1.5 - Strong oppose
  • -2.0 - Strongest/Strongest possible oppose
  • Neutral - 0
  • Support as nominator - 1
  • Speedy close/delist/withdraw - undefined
  • Votes by IPs = -0.5 + Their preference
  • Votes without apt. reason = -0.5 + Their preference

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)

Hmm, I'm not convinced, would give more emotional reviewers more power... --Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Elekhh. Also IPs shouldnt count as they dont in any other projects. Spongie555 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

New barnstar

Hey, we have a new a barnstar for VPC, Template:Valued Picture Barnstar. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good to have one. Would be nice to implement this proposal too. --Elekhh (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A banner would be nice but we need to find someone to make one. Spongie555 (talk) 19:14, 16 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)

Okay, well seems you guys are rather cliquish, and don't need any help. So long. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 13:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A barnstar kinda brought some fresh optimism for the project. It was just something small to make to thank people ho help the project. Spongie555 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ideas

I've got some ideas for the project, some which have been posted before. Hopefully we can find some sort of consensus :)

  • 1) Allow 3 supports to pass, as long as there is no opposition.
  • 2) Forget the 3 or 4 support idea, let noms run for a fixed and clearly specified amount of time and then allow reviewers to judge consensus.
  • 3) Remove the time limit before nominations can be closed for nominations that are blatantly going to pass or fail. However, this shouldn't be used simply to stifle discussion, etc.

What do you think? Acather96 (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I liked the the ideas 1 and 2. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose (3). The time limit is one of the elements which strongly distinguishes VP from all other picture recognitions on Wikipedia and Commons and the requirement which compensates for the relatively low participation in this project. Oppose (1) and (2) as long as the criteria is not further detailed. At least, I think, WP:VP? should present a set of examples of images which perfectly meet the criteria. (see previous proposal here). Now that VP reached 200, I suggest that every contributor proposes up to 3 nominations of "best of VP" with a commentary of why the selected image is "among Wikipedia's most educational work" for inclusion in the VP criteria. Than in a second stage we vote on the nominated images for being selected as the 4 best examples to be included in the VP criteria. With such an improvement I would support proposal (1) and consider (2). --Elekhh (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Elekhh. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with elekhh too except I don't know about the "best of VP" thing. Is the set of images that are te best go on the main page of VP? Persoannly I think we should have categories instead of a gallery on the main VP page. Spongie555 (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Re-paste text which was strangely reverted: Yes, I thought it would really help readers to understand the criteria if there were a few illustrations/examples on the same page. I also agree with the other issue you're raising: now that there are 200+ VPs is the right time to start organising them by categories, on the main VP page. --Elekhh (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
We should start doing it now. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
We should start to cagortarize images. Also does anyone check the thumb page? I think it's over a 100 now on thumb 02. Spongie555 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Elekhh, that was an accident. I was checking my watchlist on my iPod Touch and must have reverted by accident. I agree with you though about the idea. I might not be active for a few days though, see my talk. Sorry again, Acather96 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Delist section

I can't find here any delist section? --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 08:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't thinker delist images. Spongie555 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It will come in use after we have 500 or so images. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey can someone count all the VPs we have because I think some people didn't update the total when they promoted the images. Spongie555 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Also i think that makes the Iowa Supreme Court building the 200 promoted image if im correct. Spongie555 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it is File:Polar Bear - Alaska.jpg. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates/Archive_5&oldid=1140107724"