en Wikipedia talk:Valued pictures Archive 1

A good start?

Alright, we are up and (hopefully) running. The countdown timer has been fixed, so it looks like we're ready to start with the nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elucidate (talk • contribs)

I would add some emphasis somewhere that this is kind of like GA is to FA. Featured pictures is one thing, and this is like 'good pictures'. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with that assessment. For consistency across the project I propose this is renamed to "Good Pictures" instead. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that VP can be considered a type of good content. However "good" is a meaningless buzzword and means "pretty pictures" to the uninitiated. "Valued" addresses why we select these pictures - they are valued because they add significantly to articles. MER-C 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A ghetto?

If this is going to become a shunt to keep historic material off Wikipedia's main page, then this program could do considerably more harm than good. MFD? Durova^Charge! 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? I have no idea what you're referrring to here. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That post is no longer relevant. Most historical VPs are too small for FP anyway. MER-C 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure it stays that way. Durova²⁷⁸ 16:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP v VP

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)[reply]

I have moved this post here. Zoo Fari 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reword

I took the bit about encyclopedic value vs. technical quality out of the lead bit, because I think it's not a good direction for this project to pursue, and may create a false dichotomy. To my mind the idea of this project should be a slightly lower bar than 'featured pic' which would act as an incentive to drive quality - so I think it's a better approach to develop consistent quality appraisal methods, then award 'valued' for a mark of (say) 7/10, and 'featured' for 8 or 9 - you get the idea :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relating discussion started at featured pictures' talk page OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose question

I just want to know if this analogy holds. Valued Picture is to Featured Picture as Good Article is to Featured Article? If so, this project needs some more publicity and love, as Good Articles are quiet commonplace but I just found this with some random browsing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can put it that way. I've been proposing the inclusion of VPs in portals, but VPC needs to grow a bit before that can happen. Zoo Fari 16:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there's less "work" that can be done to improve a photo from Valued to Featured (since Photoshop fixing will be done during a nom process to fix complaints), while Good Articles are a real legitimate step along the way to Featured status, but still. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

Why it isn't redirected to Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates?--Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirection

There is, in all honesty, only one way I can see in which this page might ever become anything which gains significiant interest and utility, and I am not sure that that means would be in agreement with its current usage. I can and do see that there might be a real use for images which are, effectively, the best images we have to illustrate fairly broad subjects of a primarily historical type. So, for instance, I think the best "copy" of Holbein's portrait of Thomas More might qualify, as that image in general is probably the best one available on the subject of More and he is a subject of significant historical importance.

The major reservations I can foresee lie in the areas of pictures of existing historical subjects, like, for instance, cities, species of animals, and the like. Such subjects are always open to change in the real world, and there is a very definite chance of additional images being created later which might be better "overview" images of the subject. Also, I would think that if the proposed ideas were enacted, it would probably be best if the individuals "voting" were to include a large proportion of people who are primarily knowledgable about the subject field, in addition to "experts" on image quality, because a high quality image of a comparatively lesser quality or usefulness original would, reasonably, not be a real candidate.

Such evaluation of VP would probably help in the selection of images for articles which directly relate to the image subject in a significant degree, because they would point out the best image of these historical subjects. Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]