→VP Insignia - next step: option 1 |
Intothewoods29 (talk | contribs) →VP Insignia - next step: op 3? |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
*I Like Option 1. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|<font color = "red" >Redtigerxyz</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Redtigerxyz|Talk]] </sup> 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
*I Like Option 1. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|<font color = "red" >Redtigerxyz</font>]] <sup> [[User talk:Redtigerxyz|Talk]] </sup> 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
* '''Option 1''' - Though I thought #3 was a medal hanging off the branches and thought "that'd be even better for an actual VP than the current design." ~ '''<font size="2">[[User:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkred">ωαdεstεr</span><span style="color:darkblue">16</span>]]'''</font><sub>[[User talk:Wadester16|<span style="color:black">«talk</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Wadester16|<span style="color:black">stalk»</span>]]</sup> 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
* '''Option 1''' - Though I thought #3 was a medal hanging off the branches and thought "that'd be even better for an actual VP than the current design." ~ '''<font size="2">[[User:Wadester16|<span style="color:darkred">ωαdεstεr</span><span style="color:darkblue">16</span>]]'''</font><sub>[[User talk:Wadester16|<span style="color:black">«talk</span>]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Wadester16|<span style="color:black">stalk»</span>]]</sup> 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
* '''Option 3''', though Option 1 is a close second. I like the whole seed -> branch imagery. [[User:Intothewoods29|Intothewoods29]] ([[User talk:Intothewoods29|talk]]) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== It is essential that we iron out the wrinkles == |
== It is essential that we iron out the wrinkles == |
Revision as of 20:03, 8 February 2009
![]() Archives |
---|
My next idea - nominator decides on ONE article
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)
- I absolutely agree. That's a great idea. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also agree. I've said the same thing on FPC discussions. EV should be strong for one article (more than one is just gravy). There's no cumulative EV with an image weakly contributing to many articles adding up to a high total EV; even though it may be a useful image, I think the VP project is about images that are strongly informative/educational on one topic. Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great idea. It simplifies things a lot, aand will make the process much smoother. Elucidate (light up) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- See my comments below. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been around VP long but I don't really see a need to change anything. It seems to be working just fine without narrowing the focus. Cacophony (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Infobox and Advertising
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! |
Bot Closings?
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)
- Hmmm... who will create the bot? It would be awesome if the wiki software had some type of checkbox, radio button, or drop down list for the author to select the category from. Anyone skilled who can do this would be great. ZooFari 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea; now we just need someone who can do it. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 22:46, 16 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? ZooFari 22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Dschwen is busy and can not create the bot. --Muhammad(talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
A ghetto?
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. DurovaCharge! 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Some of the historic material is very though provoking and has good quality. IMO, this should still remain at FPC. Only those images that do not meet the technical requirements of FPC, such as less than 1000px, or damaged beyond repair should be kept for VPC. --Muhammad(talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are there any specific nominations you're referring to? Most of the VPs are either failed FPCs or too small anyway. Also, I've always thought of VPC as lower on the totem pole than FPC, so a Valued Picture can always be nominated and promoted onto the main page that way. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:50, 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. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Despite this situation, I have some opinions that have kept me inconfident ever since Valued Pictures was opened for nominations. I wrote this without the exception of provoking anything or anyone, and I hope you may feel free to agree or disagree.
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:
- This page highlights images that the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, stunning, impressive, and/or informative.
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:
-
Very valuable picture that does deserve to be a VP. It is very rare, possibly the only picture of this guy in existence.
-
Image that I don't see how it is valued. It is like any other image on Wikipedia. Unless it was extinct, I would have strongly opposed this image.
-
Definitly a valued picture, as it is illustrating an event. The bird is chasing the other.
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. ZooFari 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- The value in the Tasmanian Thornbill is because there isn't another photograph available on wikimedia of the species. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia valued pictures project is modeled after the Commons valued images project with two important exceptions:
- Commons serves nearly 300 language editions of Wikipedia. So editors from hundreds of projects may go there in search of the best available image of encyclopedic topics such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
- Commons featured picture criteria do not count encyclopedic value (English Wikipedia featured picture criteria do count encyclopedic value).
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. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you insist, I will continue to review the candidates from both projects normally as I did before this situation has started, despite the considerations between FP or VP. I will follow the criteria from that particular projects without the exception of the other project. Though I may agree with you that VP may cause problems between FP and COM:VP, who knows how this will work out as it has only been 1 month or so since VP has opened. (Also, what do you mean about my ignorance of File:Woundedknee1891.jpg and File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg??? I only reviewed File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg, what is the problem of me not reviewing the other?) ZooFari 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- They're both important images that show different aspects of the same subject. In 2007 File:Woundedknee1891.jpg would probably have passed FPC. Fortunately we've been able to raise FP standards by locating better files and doing restorations. File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg might be as good as we can ever get. The event happened in rural South Dakota in midwinter and the photographer worked with nineteenth century technology under harsh lighting conditions due to snow glare. The uncropped Library of Congress original is 100MB in uncompressed TIFF format. If you're used to vector graphics and digital photography an albumen print might not pack the same wallop, but in its own way it's quite a leap forward. If you're looking for material to populate VP there's plenty I could send your way. Thank you for your hard work and best wishes. DurovaCharge! 06:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Basically as I see it, I'd deny a nomination at FPC if the quality of the scan or restoration was at fault for technical problems. If on the other hand the image is of the highest quality likely to be available, then there is no reason not to support. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- They're both important images that show different aspects of the same subject. In 2007 File:Woundedknee1891.jpg would probably have passed FPC. Fortunately we've been able to raise FP standards by locating better files and doing restorations. File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg might be as good as we can ever get. The event happened in rural South Dakota in midwinter and the photographer worked with nineteenth century technology under harsh lighting conditions due to snow glare. The uncropped Library of Congress original is 100MB in uncompressed TIFF format. If you're used to vector graphics and digital photography an albumen print might not pack the same wallop, but in its own way it's quite a leap forward. If you're looking for material to populate VP there's plenty I could send your way. Thank you for your hard work and best wishes. DurovaCharge! 06:05, 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)
- This is the only thing that I am confused about, and it would be great if you can explain. According to your description you have given above, wouldn't that make almost every image on Wikipedia a good VP (except those who are FP)? There are thousands out there with good quality and meet the criteria. (By the way, the VP a gave in the above discussions about the bird, I guess I wasn't there for the nominationg proccess to see its reasons) ZooFari 16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Theoretically, yes. However, many images on Wikipedia pages aren't useful or don't have much EV. If you want to try it out, click Random Article a few times. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Valued Picture Insignia
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/ENWP_VP_Logo.svg/220px-ENWP_VP_Logo.svg.png)
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)
- Great! But you never mentioned the color of the box's stroke. Does it have to be light blue (not that it isn't a good choice)? ZooFari 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you feel that a different color would be better, feel free to be bold and change it. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Template for contributors
![]() | This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia. |
- Ta da! This is for users who wish to record, on their user page or other dedicted subpage, the amount of valued pictures they have uploaded to Wikipedia. Just put the template on your page, and put the number of uploaded VPs in the designated spot. (It works the same as the User FP template) Elucidate (light up) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WOOHOOOOOO! (Oh wait... I have no VPs :( Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
HELP WITH BACKLOG
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)
Valued Picture
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«talkstalk» 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:
- The image should be used in more than one article;
- The articles should be listed by value in given article (i.e. 1. White House; 2. Washington, D.C.; 3. United States; Other. Template:White House, etc);
- The image should offer outstanding EV in the first article (see #2) and at least some EV in the others (i.e. secondary articles benefit from the inclusion of the image);
- The image should be in the first article (see #2) for at least one month; and
- The time the image has been in subsequent articles is irrelevant even though it may add to the "value" of the image by spreading it to other articles, even if they are added the same day as the nom (or even after).
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«talkstalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this idea is a toothless tiger. To paraphrase, it has to be in more than one article, but could have been placed in all but the first on the day of the nom (or after!!). So I have a photo that sticks in one article, I whack it in a few more when I'm nominating so that it meets these criteria, and then it's eligible to pass anyway. This achieves nothing. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- It achieves broader use of an image beyond just using an image in one article. It encourages users to make an image a multitasker (used in many articles) rather than a unitasker (used only in one article). I personally don't think an image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia unless it is used to portray a significant meaning in more than one article. For example, my oppose to Halemaumau vent would have been a support if the image had been included in the articles I mentioned in my comment. I mean, using the image in Pele had little EV, but using it in Halemaumau Crater, Kīlauea, or Hawaii Volcanoes National Park would offer much more EV; inclusion in all three would gain a strong support from me. My main concern is that we're going to get a collection of valued pictures made up of images like this. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the nominator, creator, or supporters of this image (I really don't), but I think it stands as a good case study to support my point. It is used in only one article and while it may be supporting a GA-status article, does it really add value to Wikipedia as a whole? If it were removed, would people notice? On this track, almost any image would qualify, IMO. I'd really like to read more comments on this because to me, this is a fundamental quality of VPC that should be on paper while it's still young. And if an apparent consensus is not in my favor, I vow to shut up about it :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- It achieves a temporary broader use, but there's no saying it's going to stick in all these articles, and you even recommend somewhere adding some photo to a gallery to give it wider usage - how does that help WP? However I think we're on philosophically different wavelengths. In my original suggestion I argue about it having high value for one article, other articles may be a bonus. However I finish up pointing out that we shouldn't be spamming articles with our photos. The whole gist of your argument is in support of article spamming. A number of users agree with my concept and also oppose article spamming. I actually agree with your comments about Halemaumau vent, not in the sense that it needs to be in many articles, but in the sense that it was in the wrong article to begin with, and I covered that area in my suggestion linked above. As I say though I think we're on different wavelengths as I don't think I'm going to change my mind in support of article spamming (and I say this with two promoted VPs thusfar that I have created, both of which are prominent in multiple articles, so I'm not just trying to 'protect my turf' as it were). --jjron (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, how do you respond to my comment that almost any image could end up as a VP based on the current system? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of fear that is the case. To say "any" image could become VP is obviously an exaggeration, but perhaps far too many could. However, having said that, a quick look at the archives shows quite a few failed noms already, most of which had passed at least the primary criterion of at least 30 days in the article. However this is why for example I raised this discussion about technical standards. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- All I have to say is that I can't determine anymore what I should support/oppose based on this and the above discussion. I still believe that many of the images that are VP and VPC are no where near the honor to be VP. I don't see how chocolates and candy should be VP, as I don't see any purpose how they are educational. Yes, they add a very significant resource for an article, but I guarantee you that I would pick out 100 pictures in one hour that apply to the criteria and add significant image to an article. As of now, I'm unable to vote on VPC anymore, as I can't determine what I should oppose or support accordingly to the criteria and the discussions here. Sorry! ZooFari 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't feel that not voting is going to help anything. To a degree I think that only by participating can we clarify these things. That's why I am trying to give a pretty detailed justification in my 'votes', whether for or against - so that other people can see exactly how I'm trying to apply the criteria (or even apply my own criteria at this early stage). They may agree or disagree, but at least I'm trying to be explicit. In your discussion above you almost seemed to be arguing for rare or unusual images rather than what I would consider valuable images - for example I would rate the bird on the tree more valuable than the bird chasing the other bird, but you come to the opposite conclusion. IMO this is a misinterpretation of what we are looking for. --jjron (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
VP Insignia - next step
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)
- Good point. "VPC" could be a simple enough switch. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, and it might also be a good idea to split one of the twigs apart as well. But I'm neutral :) ZooFari 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some modifications. Choose which you prefer:
-
Option 1; only one twig with VPC
-
Option 2; the same, but with VPC instead of VP
-
Option 3; twigs coming out from seed and VPC
ZooFari 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I Like Option 1. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Option 1 - Though I thought #3 was a medal hanging off the branches and thought "that'd be even better for an actual VP than the current design." ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Option 3, though Option 1 is a close second. I like the whole seed -> branch imagery. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It is essential that we iron out the wrinkles
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:
- IMO there are only two clauses in the current criteria addressing quality and they are extremely vague. A rewrite of technical standards is very necessary so everyone is on the same page (especially for any newbies that may come around). This nom (is the lighting acceptable?), this nom (are minor stitching errors acceptable?), this nom (is the van acceptable?), and apparently now this nom (are the shadow and bushes acceptable?) are dependent on clearer standards definitions. Here are the two clauses in the criteria that address technical standards:
- A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; and
- A valued picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing.
- We need to come up with a general size requirement, or at least make mention of a size requirement versus EV in the criteria (per this nom).
- We need to finalize this conversation and get explicit criteria for evaluating EV.
- I would suggest the first reviewer of a nom to verify time requirements, and include that in their post, allowing subsequent reviewers to ASG on that assessment. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Per this discussion, I'm still concerned that almost any reasonable-quality image could be come a VP.
Thanks for reading. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion, technical quality is a not-so-important qualification. After all, this isn't FP. For instance, the panorama stiching. It is barely noticable, but it sure gives a value as a set. ZooFari 17:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the technicals have to be good enough for it to be an effective illustration. We can forgive things such as CA, artifacting, noise and to some extent size, exposure, stitching errors and unsharpness. However we must require, for instance, that the subject be not cut off/obscured without reason, no unencyclopedic distortion and an accurate white balance. I'd set the size limit to approximately article size (~300px for ordinary images to ~1500px for panoramas using {{wide image}}). MER-C 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's basically my interpretation on technicals. The Bermuda one for example I wasn't so concerned about what may have been minor stitching errors as the fact that the whole thing was horribly curving to the right. On size I disagree a bit, but have stated my opinion elsewhere - in effect it should be sufficient to show relevant details at image page size. I don't think you can put a definite number on this, as the size to do this will vary from image to image. In general I agree with what Wadester16 says, that we need to clarify some things and finish or act on a few discussions. However let's be honest, after whatever it is, say 5 years of FPC, different people still interpret technical merits differently, or interpret them differently based on the overall merits of the image. That's why many images get a variation in supports and opposes, not just a string of one or the other. So sure we need to better clarify, but don't expect that everyone is suddenly going to have identical interpretations. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)