Wikipedia talk:Valued picture criteria/Archive 1

"Does not have to be of high technical standard" ?[edit]

Hopefully we can change this to: "Is technically adequate for subject matter". The images should be technically good; not suburb necessarily but of quality that doesn't leave most viewers wanting. This seems pretty common sense really. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this. I will change the criteria to reflect this. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 20:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean it is going to be another FPC? I cannot agree less with the statement: "lower quality may sometimes be allowed". And what does it mean "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject" ? To find where? Anywhere on the NET or in Wikipedia with a free licence? IMO criterias number 2 and number 3 say it all. If an image is good enoug quality to be "suitably illustrating an article for at least one month" and "is among Wikipedia's most educational work" sure it should be good enough to make this image a good VP candidate.Most articles are illustrated with the best images availabale for a particular subject. If an image is in an article, it probably means that it is the best one for the subject. IMO VP project with criteria #1 as it is written now is going nowhere. I believe that, if there should be any criteria, which talks about tha image quality it should be the last one and not the first one as it is now.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I'd say that criteria six should also be included. If the image is to be educational, then it needs to have an appropriate description. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should have a good caption. IMO it should be very easy to add a caption to an image, which is "suitably illustrating an article". The caption might be made out of the text of an article itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crit 7, caption[edit]

Something which puzzles me, and which also puzzles me about WP:FP, is the caption requirement. A specific caption sort of directs towards a specific use in a specific article. Certain valued pictures are useable in several different articles. For me, it seems more relevant that the image page has a good and thorough description. This is where relevant information should be kept about an image. Not a caption on some nomination page which is merely linked to the image and which it is unlikely most users will see. The image page should in my opinion have the emphasis. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Would you care to ammend the offending clause? I have to go now, and wont get a chance to fix it. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is time yet and maybe other users have other opinions. Many relevant stakeholders probably does not even have this page in their watchlist - yet. A similar clause has - after all - existed for a long time on WP:FP, and I'm not a regular here and may be missing some good reasons. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, and I am something of an offender myself. The Image description page should include a fair amount of information, certainly more than the nomination. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the criteria in accordance with what we've discussed. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPC vs VPC[edit]

I think the criteria should point out the major difference between VP and FP. We had also discussed that if an image is a FP then it can not be nominated as a VP. Muhammad(talk) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've added this as the third criteria. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 11:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation[edit]

The criteria gave no mention to the location of the subject, I fixed that. I'd like to add Geolocation is preferable for architecture and landscapes. Any opposition? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I'm all for it. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 11:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Requirement[edit]

The words "Time Requirement" should appear somewhere on Wikipedia:Valued picture criteria, no? (currently they don't) —Pengo 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution[edit]

Resolution should be a criteria? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]