Oppose: Point 4.2 of Commons:Valued image criteria states that the description should contain "Links to Wikipedia (or elsewhere) should be included to assist with verification." Although the description of the image is thorough, it lacks these links. I have checked both the English and German articles so it might be appropriate to include a reference to some other guide to the church.Martinvl (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it is Done! I don't know, what you mean, THE LINKS ARE AT THE DESCRIPTION PAGE. Please have a look on the page image file - here under "File usage on other wikis", this is the part just above the Metadata. In the valued image cadidate page there is only as reference a hint on the links existing on the description page!!! Why do you oppose against better judgement? Or do you oppose only to oppose? --Llez (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I just checked some of your pictures, you submitted as VIC and which have been promoted, e.g. this, this, this, this and so on. None of them is linked to an article in wikipedia. Why do you not fullfill you own criteria in your own nominations? According to your statement above, they should never have been promoted, as they are not linked to any wikipedia article. --Llez (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Llez: . We are clearly talking at cross-purposes. Let me look at this file, the first of the three that you mentioned. If you go to the field "Description", you will see three Wikilinks
Yes, but "used in" means, that the picture is used in the article, not a link to an article on a term. And your pictures do not appear in articles, as it is meant by "Used in", but if you want, I can do so. Done Now I know what you mean and I linked as you wanted, also in my other nomination and thanks for the hint. It is new for me. I nominate VIs for more than five years, and never it was was required by an reviewer. But what's with many other VIC on this page which are not linked in your sense. Why don't you oppose there? --Llez (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
