This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Shut down, 21 December 2010, see discussion. Keep, 7 October 2009, see discussion. No Consensus, 4 June 2009, see discussion.

• Archives: 1
• Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates Archives: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
• Wikipedia talk:Valued picture criteria Archives: 1

Per the MFD, this project has been closed. If there are some project pages associated with VP I have missed, feel free to redirect them. Extraneous templates which are no longer useful can probably be deleted or marked as obsolete (makes no sense to redirect a template to a project page). The actual nominations, though, should probably stay intact since they're the equivalent to archived discussions. harej 04:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Wikipedia:WikiCup need this project! Restore it!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup most certainly does not need this project, and, even if it did, that would be no reason to restore it. The consensus at the MfD is clear. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus failed to notice the increase in usage the Valued pictures had made in not much time at all. You claimed, J Milburn, that the process had changed to make it easier for images to pass, when really the only change that was really made was to lower the required number of votes by one. I just feel that closing it was a sad, cold and unnecessary move, but Wikipedia will never understand. --I'ḏ♥One 07:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will never understand? Oh, woe is you. When standards are lowered and fewer people are needed to support an image, it is easier for images to pass. That seemed to be the main concern one the talk page- making it easier for things to pass- rather than trying to sort out the very real problem of complete lack of direction. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the standard was lowered merely by one vote, and many nominations got more than that. If someone felt a nomination was not valuable enough to be there, they had a computer and keypad and only needed to transcribe their case, like I did on this one, but it's hopeless of course to try to get through to hardheaded people once they've set their opinion one way. --I'ḏ♥One 06:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I proposed something very similar to this here, but it sadly wasn't very popular. My basic idea was that we should focus most of all on the irreplaceability of the image- it is worth recognising an image that we should be proud to have, those that make you go "wow" because it's close to impossible that we could get a picture of the same thing that does a better job. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been deleted too? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 10:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{VPCold}} is being deleted. Below is a list of images formerly using this template (and listed in Category:Wikipedia old valued picture candidates)

• File:Inaugural invitation 2009.jpg
• File:NY 292 near Whaley Lake.jpg
• File:20080310 Soldiers and Sailors edit.JPG
• File:20070601 Victory Monument (2).JPG
• File:Cape Barren Goose edit1.jpg
• File:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg
• File:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif
• File:Haridwar from opposite bank of the Ganges, 1866.jpg
• File:Late Medieval Trade Routes.jpg
• File:Litoria ewingii tadpole.jpg
• File:Peace candle easton pennsylvania.jpg

Primefac (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]