Commons:Valued image candidates/Werner, Hannelore (1969).jpg

Werner, Hannelore (1969).jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-20 20:24 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Hannelore Werner in 1969
Used in	Global usage de:Hannelore Werner
Reason	It's the only portrait of Hannelore Werner in the commons as I know. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Review (criteria)	Support why not using the more general scope Hannelore Werner? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)  Support @Capricorn4049: Because we can promote the scoop Hannelore Werner in evening dress 1970 . Lothar must have this picture. A too general scope ruins diversity. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)  Comment I thought it would be helpful to say that Hannelore Werner is not any woman but a racing driver around 50 years ago. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus and Spurzem: I stronlgy disagree. We don't need a diversity of scopes, we need scopes that define a generic field or category within which an image is the most valuable example. Please read Commons:Valued image scope and particularly How to choose your scope. Scope is not a simple description of an image - think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category. Would you create a Category named German racing driver Hannelore Werner in 1969, Hannelore Werner in evening dress 1970 or Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval (at the left) and bishop Stephan Ackermann in Trier? The scope should be so, that someone might realistically be looking for an image to illustrate. You would maybe search for an image to illustrate Hannelore Werner or Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval, maybe even Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval in Trier. Please note also that VI is an award. If you choose your scope narrow enough that it is more a description than a scope, you could nominate and promote every picture on Commons to be a VI and that would reduce the value of the award (and the exclusiveness of promoted pictures till this day) to zero. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Capricorn4049: Mein Englisch genügt, um zu verstehen, was Du schreibst; ich kann aber Deinem Gedankengang beim besten Willen nicht folgen. Wenn jemand ein Bild von Hannelore Werner sucht, braucht er ohnehin keinen Scope von VI. Er gibt bei Google den Namen ein und findet sie. Im Übrigen wurde ich kürzlich erst aufgefordert, die Scopes präziser zu formulieren. Du magst das aber nicht. Allmählich fühle ich mich hier veralbert. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Spurzem: Ich erkläre es dir gerne auch auf Deutsch: Es geht nicht darum, dass jemand ein Bild von Hannelore Werner sucht und findet. Den findet er (mit hunderten von anderen) auf jeden Fall, wenn du es auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite gut beschreibst. Bei VI geht es darum jemandem zu helfen, der das beste Bild von Hannelore Werner auf Commons sucht. Also nochmals: Wenn jemand in den VI's nach Hannelore Werner sucht, soll das beste Bild von ihm erscheinen, ohne dass er noch die anderen hundert Bilder durchschauen muss (es ist mir auch klar, dass es in diesem Fall nicht 100 andere Bilder von Hannelore Werner gibt auf Commons, aber nur zum Beispiel). Es wird jedoch nie jemand nach Deutscher Rennfahrer Hannelore Werner im 1969 mit blauem Hut und gelber Jacke nach links schauend suchen. Ausserdem ist die Auszeichnung und der Wert deines Bildes viel höher, wenn es das Beste in einem generelleren scope ist als wenn es nur das beste in einem Spezialfall vom Spezialfall vom Spezialfall ist. Und der Wert der Auszechung an sicht geht auch völlig verloren, wenn man jeden Schei.. nominieren kann. Verstehst du das? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Es hat nichts mit meinem Englisch zu tun. Ich kann Deiner Argumentation auch nicht folgen, wenn Du sie auf Deutsch schreibst. Ich wollte in dem Scope lediglich den Betrachtern hier sagen, dass Hannelore Werner nicht irgendein Mädel ist, sondern eine ehemalige Rennfahrerin. Denn nicht jeder weiß das, Du vielleicht, ich ebenfalls, viele andere nicht. Von blauer Mütze und gelber Jacke steht da übrigens nichts. Des Weiteren weiß ich nicht, wie unsere Scopes jemandem helfen sollen, der bestimmte Bilder sucht. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Capricorn4049: Your reflection on this subject goes through a phase of clarification of the scope. I stopped there too a moment in the past. But we must consider that we must manage more than 42 million images and help people find their way. We must create categories and sometimes very narrow (the name of a painting in a museum because there are several versions in the world, or a subspecies of animal). The scope is not just the description of an image, it is not the expression of the category that contains the image (Some images have more than 12 categories); the scope is all here at once and we must also anticipate the evolution. A well-done scope answers these problems. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "German racing driver Hannelore Werner in 1969" is not a scope, it's a description. The scope for this image could be "Hannelore Werner in 1969" or even "Portrait of Hannelore Werner". Until this is resolved, I have to say  Oppose --MB-one (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  Oppose Per MB-one --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  Done. Nevertheless incredible! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Scope changed from German racing driver Hannelore Werner in 1969 to Hannelore Werner in 1969 --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Support Far better --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  Support --MB-one (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)