Commons:Кандидаты в ценные изображения

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status, and image sets for valued image set (VIS) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image or set for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image or set which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

Как номинировать изображение или набор изображений на получение статуса «ценного»[edit]

Кандидатуры будет оцениваться с использованием критериев, перечисленных на странице Признаки ценных изображений Пожалуйста, прочитайте эти критерии перед номинацией изображения, чтобы среди кандидатов было меньше тех, что имеют мало шансов на успех. Убедитесь, что вы понимаете концепцию предметной области и выбрали правильную предметную область для своего изображения.


Пожалуйста, убедитесь, что предлагаемое вами изображение соответствует всем необходимым критериям до его выдвижения. Например, если нужен шаблон {{location}}, то он должен быть поставлен заранее (студийные работы можно пометить шаблоном {{Studio work}}). Если нет соответствующих категорий, то создайте их заранее перед номинацией. Хотя некоторые отзывы могут помочь устранить погрешности, это ваша ответственность, как номинатора оформить ваше изображение до того, как предоставить его на рассмотрение. Если вы предложили изображение, которое игнорирует один из критериев, не удивляйтесь, если оно не получит статуса ценного изображения.

Adding a new nomination (image)[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list, (under the heading "New valued image nominations") as the last parameter in the VICs template: Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Adding a new nomination (set)[edit]

Step 1: Choose a set name, and type that into this box after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname. Then click on the "Create new set nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VISC subpage.

Step 3: Open Commons:Valued image candidates/Set candidate list Click here, and add your set at at the bottom of the page using this format:

 {{Commons:Valued image candidates/A vulca......
 {{Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname}}

and save the set candidate list.

Повторная номинация[edit]

Отклоненные кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты любым зарегистрированным участником только после того как одна или несколько основных причин, из-за которых изображение было отклонено будут исправлены. Undecided кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты в том же состоянии, хотя рекомендуется рассмотреть и исправить причины, которые, возможно, помешали получению статуса во время предыдущей номинации.

После того, как проблемы исправлены нужно выполнить следующую процедуру повторной номинации:

Шаг 1: Отредактируйте подстраницу кандидата, которого Вы повторно номинировать. Отклоненные заявки находятся в категории [[:Category:Declined valued image candidates}, а заявки, по которым не было принято решение в категории Category:Undecided valued image candidates. Страницы в этих категориях отсортированы по дате предыдущей номинации.

Шаг 2: Замените предыдущие дату и время номинации новыми. Для этого нужно вставить строку

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Шаг 3: Замените статус "undecided" или "declined" на "nominated" (или "discussed", если изображение добавляется в раздел Most Valued Review).

Шаг 4: Если предыдущую номинацию делал другой участник, то нужно заменить имя номинатора. Для этого нужно вставить строку

|nominator=~~~

Шаг 5: Если у кандидата до этого не было архивной ссылки на предыдущее обсуждение, то ещё можно сделать следующим способом:

  • Вырезать текст в предыдущей секции "review section" (нужно оставить закрывающие фигурные скобки "]]")
  • Заменить параметр "review" строкой
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Сохранить страницу
  • Появится красная ссылка на предыдущую номинацию. Кликните на ней и вставьте предыдущий обзор
  • Сохраните эту подстраницу

Шаг 6: Добавить подстраницу в список кандидатов

How to open a Most Valued Review[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list:

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates[edit]

How to review an image[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure[edit]

  • On the review page the image <!!--or image set--> is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info My information. -- Example
You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question My question. -- Example
You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.


How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates[edit]

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
28,065 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
24,809 (88.4%) 
Undecided
  
1,419 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,837 (6.5%) 



New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Julio Terrazas u. Stephan Ackermann (2009-10-04 Sp).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-18 21:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval (at the left) and bishop Stephan Ackermann in Trier
Used in:
de:Julio Terrazas Sandoval, it:Julio Terrazas Sandoval,
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think this is a more useful picture of the cardinal. Is the scope including both the cardinal and the bishop an important one? I would need an explanation of why. Also, I think in your file description, you should tell viewers who don't know that the cardinal is on the left side with the bishop on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The cardinal is the man with red robe. I think that is general known. Further cardinal and bishop are named in the order from left to right. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you addressed my point that the other photo is a more useful one of just the cardinal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Can you show me a better image of cardinal Terrazas Sandoval together with bishop Stephan Ackermann in the streets of Trier? I can not imagine. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Why is a photo of both of them together an important scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean, it very well might be, but it would be good for you to explain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan Kekek. The scope is far to specific. A VI of the cardinal would be useful, but we don't need a VI for every cardinal with every bishop in every street of the world. And no, not everyone knows that cardinals wear red robe. If you name them from left to right, you have to state that you did so. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Laughable! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Palauenc05: I strongly disagree. Please see Special:Diff/263812721 --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Piz Grisch Panorama beschriftet.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Capricorn4049 (talk) on 2017-10-19 14:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Panorama from Piz Grisch

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, it's a great image but I don't see it being useful in web articles because of its sheer size. In order to see the text, you have to blow it up into full-size and that's not possible in an article, and when viewing it in the size it will be displayed at in articles, you can't even really see the individual mountains clearly.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, @Peulle: for your comment. I see your point. However, for the following reason I think it is still a VI:
  1. It is the most valued illustration of its kind.
  2. No criteria is violated.
  3. The information content in the picture is huge.
  4. Commons:Valued images says: Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects. The panorama still looks good in lower resolution in an article (see here for example), and if you are interested in the names of the peaks, you can click on the picture and get it in full resolution. That's exaclty the advantage of online usage.
  5. Commons:Valued images says also: The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain. I think nobody can deny that I put much effort in the picture (quickest route to the peak is 4¾ hour and not easy, stitching together 194 pictures is time consuming and technically complex and labeling is extremely time consuming), and..
  6. ..the weather on that day was so good that the view was extremely exceptional. I personally have never experienced before a day where I couldn't see any clouds or mist all around and the view in all directions was > 150 km. Therefore I'm quite sure that it is very hard or impossible to obtain again a picture like this from that peak. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are display utilities that allow to place this type of image in the artciles without difficulty with a scrollbar. No problem for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Archaeodontosaurus --Milseburg (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tacumshane Windmill.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-19 18:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Tacumshane Windmill from the east
Used in:
en:Tacumshane

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Llez (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Sassongher - Dolomites.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-19 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Sassongher, Dolomites, view from south
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Refuge du Nid d'Aigle.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Jacek79 (talk) on 2017-10-19 19:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Refuge du Nid d'Aigle
Used in:
(see metadata)
Reason:
the only image of this mountain hut on Commons so far -- Jacek79 (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Blarney Castle 2017.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-19 21:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Blarney Castle keep and dungeons from the east
Used in:
en:Blarney Castle
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Especially the right tower seems very distorted. But obviously it is the best image of this castle in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Ambulyx sericeipennis sericeipennis MHNT CUT 2010 164 Doi Inthanon Chiang Mai Thailand male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-20 05:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx sericeipennis Mounted specimen male dorsal
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful, and a QI and possibly FP if nominated, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Rue Antonin-Mercié (Toulouse) - L'ancienne entrée du Musée des Augustins.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-20 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
The old entrance to the Musée des Augustins in the Rue Antonin Mercié (Toulouse)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Accademia - Miracolosa guarigione della figlia di Benvegnudo de San Polo - Giovanni Mansueti Cat562.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-20 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
The Miraculous Healing of the Daughter of Benvegnudo of San Polo by Giovanni Mansueti, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Is it a little bright up high? I haven't seen it in person, so I don't know, but this photo is certainly best in scope and useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For 4 to 5 years this room has been refitted and a spot is placed very near the upper left corner impossible to avoid. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Palace of Nestor mausoleum ceiling (1).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2017-10-20 07:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Tomb near the Palace of Nestor, view of the vaulted ceiling.
Reason:
Only Commons image illustrating the ceiling AFAIK; will work in articles since they use the review size only. -- Peulle (talk)
Open for review.
Palace of Nestor mausoleum (2).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2017-10-20 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
View of the entrance to the tomb near the Palace of Nestor.
Used in:
9 Wikipedia articles.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Evening at Padma.jpeg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2017-10-20 12:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Evening at Padma River (Just beside the Padma Garden, Rajshahi)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are many pictures of the river at evening. Can you explain why this one shows the river better than the others? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Capricorn4049: Scope has been changed from Evening at Padma River to Evening at Padma River (Just beside the Padma Garden, Rajshahi) and it is different as there are some birds flying. Thank you. --Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a useful scope in my view. Charles (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles. The old scope was clearly better, but the nominator could not convince me that this picture is the best in scope. The birds have undisputed nothing to do with the scope. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Alupotti, Rajshahi.jpeg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2017-10-20 12:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Alupotti, Rajshahi

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment can you explain what alupotti is. Is that a street in Rajshahi city? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not a street, it is a place or locality of Rajshahi. Thank you.--Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your anser. I checked it on google street view. But is Alupotti not the place/junction that would be exactly below the lower edge of the picture? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this place is of more than local interest. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment common, @Archaeodontosaurus: You can't be serious. This picture does not even show the place Alupotti in Rajshahi. It shows the buildigs behind the square Alupotti. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 11:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did not understand the scope as the representation of "a square" but as that of a neighborhood. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not sure and that's why I asked the nominator. According to my research it is the junction below the picture or the street to the left. There is a mosque called Alupotti Sadar Jame Masjid, but that would be behind the photographer. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Granagh Castle.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-20 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Granagh Castle near Waterford, Ireland - from the east
Used in:
en:List of castles in Ireland
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
River Suir Bridge, Waterford.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-20 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
River Suir Bridge, Waterford, Ireland - from the north-west
Used in:
en:River Suir Bridge

Symbol support vote.svg Support You could even use the more general scope River Suir Bridge (without from north-west). --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I chose the scope to allow room for VI nominations of other images of this bridge. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Bergtocht van Churwalden Mittelberg (1500 meter) via Ranculier en Praden naar Tschiertschen 06.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-10-20 18:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Reformierte Kirche Praden Kirche Praden South side

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At a second view, I think that criterium 4 is violated (There should be a full and informative description of what the image depicts). The image does not show a "Mountain trip from Churwalden Mittelberg (1500 meter) via Ranculier and Praden towards Tschiertschen." --Capricorn4049 (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now --Capricorn4049 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC).

Open for review.
WernerHannelore-OlympicFormelV19690801-1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-20 20:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Hannelore Werner in her Formula Vee car at Nürburging
Used in:
de:Formelsport, de:Formel V, de:Hannelore Werner, en:Formula Vee, it:Volkswagen Beetle, nl:Formule Vee
Open for review.
Werner, Hannelore (1969).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-20 20:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Hannelore Werner in 1969
Used in:
de:Hannelore Werner
Reason:
It's the only portrait of Hannelore Werner in the commons as I know. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support why not using the more general scope Hannelore Werner? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Archaeodontosaurus, 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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --MB-one (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MB-one --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg 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".

Open for review.
Xeroleuca gouliminensis depressa 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-20 21:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Xeroleuca gouliminensis ssp. depressa (shell)
Open for review.
Duisburg, Marxloh, Kreuzeskirche, 2017-09 CN-11.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-10-20 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Kreuzeskirche, Duisburg-Marxloh (southeast view)
Open for review.
Duisburg, Marxloh, Kreuzeskirche, 2017-09 CN-05.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-10-20 21:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Historic organ case (1905) in the Kreuzeskirche, Duisburg-Marxloh
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. [...] Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
There is already a VI-nomination for the interior of Kreuzeskirche. Can you please explain what on this organ case is so special that it deserves an own scope? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - In articles about church organs or a comprehensive article about this church, this picture absolutely has a useful scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. Organs such as this one are works of art and of engineering genius in their own right, and this one deserves a picture independently of whether it is in a church or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Duisburg, Marxloh, Kreuzeskirche, 2017-09 CN-13.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-10-20 21:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Klops pipe organ (1998) with its gallery in the Kreuzeskirche, Duisburg-Marxloh
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. [...] Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
There is already a VI-nomination for the interior of Kreuzeskirche. Can you please explain what on this Klops pipe organ is so special that it deserves an own scope? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - In articles about church organs or a comprehensive article about this church, this picture absolutely has a useful scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. This is an image of an organ, which in my opinion is a notable object in its own right. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Duisburg, Marxloh, Kreuzeskirche, 2017-09 CN-15.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-10-20 21:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Belfry of the Kreuzeskirche, Duisburg-Marxloh
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a rare image of bells in a belfry, useful and used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. [...] Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
There is already a VI-nomination for the interior of Kreuzeskirche. Can you please explain what on this Belfry is so special that it deserves an own scope? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. The bells and their installation are of interest independently of the interior of the church itself. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I admire Capricorn4049 and holding VI's to a high standard and they are a reward, I feel this part of the building has notability in and of itself. I can see someone looking for a picture of the bells themselves. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Duisburg, Marxloh, Kreuzeskirche, 2017-09 CN-18.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-10-20 21:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Roof truss of the Kreuzeskirche, Duisburg-Marxloh
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. [...] Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
There is already a VI-nomination for the interior of Kreuzeskirche. Can you please explain what on this roof truss is so special that it deserves an own scope? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. Interesting architectural detail. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
1965-05-23 07b John Surtees, Ferrari 330P2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-20 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
John Surtees in 1965 with Ferrari 320 P2 at Nürburgring
Used in:
de: John Surtees, de: 1000-km-Rennen auf dem Nürburgring 1965, de: Ferrari 320P2, en: John Surtees, es: John Surtees, fr: John Surtees
Reason:
A 52 years old image -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
Ambulyx sericeipennis sericeipennis MHNT CUT 2010 164 Doi Inthanon Chiang Mai Thailand male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-21 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx sericeipennis Mounted specimen male ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rue Antonin-Mercié (Toulouse) - no 11 bis immeuble (1903) – Cour intérieure.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-21 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Antonin Mercié (Toulouse) Bay window - Courtyard of the N ° 11bis
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings (Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope): Can you please state the supra-local interest of the bay window? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a very typical Art Deco work of this period. Two categories have been added --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Then why not choosing the scope Art Deco Bay window of period xx? Your scope is more a description of the location than a scope. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • An image may have several scopes. She can be promoted several times with different scopes, as the regulation provides. I have never used this particularity of our rules and I prefer to choose a single scope. In the present case this image is part of a particular work which is the illsutration of the historic center of the city of Toulouse street by street.
  • @Archaeodontosaurus: Illustration of the historic center of the city of Toulouse street by street?! - Wow, sounds like an interesting, valuable but labor-intensive project that drives commons forward and therefore is worthy of support and acknowledgement - exactly what VI was invented for. What do you think of nominating those pictures as valued image set? I think the set is significantly more valuable and honours your pictures more than a collection of individual VI images. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. Adds richness to the collection. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Accademia - Procession in piazza San Marco by Gentile Bellini.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-21 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Procession in piazza San Marco by Gentile Bellini, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
Open for review.
Tjerkgaast. Spannenburg (Het Wapen van Friesland) Strjitwei 5 (Rijksmonument) 002.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-10-21 05:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Spannenburg (Tjerkgaast) Het Wapen van Friesland. North side.

Symbol support vote.svg Support BEst in scope --Llez (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
FS R.410.004 - Val Gardena railway 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-21 13:27 (UTC)
Scope:
FS R.410.004, Val Gardena railway, restored, front and left side
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Up to now the best in scope though the image is very distorted. Why did you use such a short lens? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No chance to go further back, sorry --Llez (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC) }
Open for review.
FS R.410.004 - Val Gardena railway 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-21 13:27 (UTC)
Scope:
FS R.410.004, Val Gardena railway, restored, back and right side
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Up to now best in scope but very distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No chance to go further back, sorry --Llez (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC) }
Sometimes it is a problem indeed and it is a pity. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Heracleum sosnowskyi Inflorescences.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
KSK (talk) on 2017-10-21 15:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Heracleum sosnowskyi Inflorescence.
Open for review.
Lok VI, Chrzanow, Bj. 1952, Nr. 2248.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-21 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Former locomotive engine VI of Brohltalbahn
Used in:
de:Brohltalbahn
Reason:
A beautiful locomotive engine as I think and one of few images in the commons. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Architectonica plicata 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-21 19:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Architectonica plicata, shell
Open for review.
Amphimoea walkeri MHNT CUT 2010 0 160 Alto Palmar Chapare Bolivia female dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-22 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphimoea walkeri Mounted specimen female dorsal

Symbol support vote.svg Support useflu. tyop coretced Charles (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Aperture of Rio San Giovanni Crisostomo on Grand Canal (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-22 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Opening of the Rio San Giovanni Crisostomo (Venice) from Grand Canal

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and often used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds Eglise - fonts baptismaux.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-22 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Martin de Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds, France. The chapel of the baptismal font.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read Commons:Valued_image_scope#Buildings: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes. [...] Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary).
There are already six (!!) VI of the interior of Église Saint-Martin de Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds. Can you please explain what on this chapel of the baptismal is so special that it deserves an own scope? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All the baptismal fonts in all the churches of the world deserve their own cope. This one is registered under the historical monument. In addition to looking at the pictures, you also have to read the captions.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You are right, this specific font deserves its own scope becaus it's registered under the historical monument. Sorry, I overlooked that. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pictures of separate chapels are certainly useful for a comprehensive article about a church. I could say the same thing about organs, which have different shapes and designs, and belfries. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Parish church St. Ulrich - Urtijëi.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-22 06:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Parish church St. Ulrich, Urtijëi, South Tyrol, view from NW

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
2007-04-07 07 Achilles-Sport 175, Bj. 1955, front (Foto Spu).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-22 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Achilles-Sport, front
Used in:
de: Achilles-Sport, nl: Achilles (motorfiets)
Reason:
Today the Achilles-Sport is very a rare scooter; only around 3000 were built from 1953 to 1957 when the manufacturer closed. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Mimsy Farmer 1975.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-10-22 12:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Mimsy Farmer
Used in:
See Global usage
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can you please explain what on this black-and-white picture is better than on this picture? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This portrait is good quality with resolution than other. ~Moheen (keep talking) 05:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree, quality is better --Capricorn4049 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Best in scope. IMO no contest with the poor-quality color photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Bollendorf Hypokaustum.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-10-22 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Roman underfloor heating in the Villa rustica, Bollendorf, Germany.
Used in:
de:Villa rustica (Bollendorf)
Open for review.
Aspark Owl Back IMG 0333.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2017-10-22 16:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Aspark Owl - rear
Reason:
It's unlikely to get a better shot of this model anytime soon. -- MB-one (talk)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why should it not be possible to get a better shot of this car anytime soon? Further I miss some details in the description of the image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • It's a concept vehicle and will not show up on the streets. The need for more details has been addressed on the category page. --MB-one (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Very complicated. ;-) -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Scope is good, and picture is best in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and probably useful image especially looking forward to a report about the owl in Wikipedia. But poor scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Chuna Khola Mosque (27341779592).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-10-22 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Chuna Khola Mosque, north exposure
Used in:
See Global usage
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support scope makes sense and picture is best in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Goliath Goli (2014-08-29 6605).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-22 17:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Goliath Goli pickup truck
Used in:
de: Goliath Goli, he: גוליית גולי
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Radison Blue Chittagong.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-10-22 17:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Radisson Blu Chittagong Bay View, south exposure, front
Used in:
See Global usage
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Metekhi church. Panorama 2017.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Mehman 97 on 2017-10-22 14:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Metekhi church
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - By far not the most useful picture of the church at review size, as the category shows numerous closer views of the church, such as File:2016 Tbilisi, Cerkiew Metechi (01).jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. While the rock and the bridge add a nice visual touch to it, the purpose of a VI is to represent the thing itself. However, the scope is useful. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand why not two, three ore more pictures within a scope respective category should be valuable. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Garlic-Chicken balls (6068563531).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-10-22 17:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Garlic-Chicken balls, cooked
Used in:
See Global usage
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful scope and picture --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Johnstown Castle - from the south-west.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-22 18:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Johnstown Castle, Wexford, Ireland - from the south-west
Used in:
en:Wexford

Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better. Thank you. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Ferguson-Brown Type A.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-22 18:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Ferguson-Brown Type A - front
Used in:
en:Ferguson-Brown Company, en:Irish Agricultural Museum
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good scope and best picture in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Barrel-top caravan.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-22 19:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Irish-Traveller-style barrel-top caravan
Used in:
en:Irish Agricultural Museum
Open for review.
Rathaspeck Manor gate lodge.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-10-22 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Rathaspeck Manor gate lodge from the south-east
Used in:
en:County Wexford
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could you please state the more than local interest of the building? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • This building is a curiosity and an architectural gem! It adds colour and interest to the world! I think we need to encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability such as this one (per COM:Valued images), and perhaps not try to find reasons in the "small print" to discourage or exclude them. Also (and I've now added it to the file description) this building is on Ireland's National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support @DeFacto: I don't want to find reasons in small print or discourage photographers. On contrary, I want to encourage them to think about their scope and increase the value of their pictures (and the value of the label VI) by choosing a scope that is useful for other people. Just take pictures of a nice building and try to promote it under the name of the street it's in is too cheap.
However, this specific picture is certainly very valuable under the chosen scope as it is on Ireland's National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (an important fact that increases the value of your picture and that we only know because I asked and "encouraged" you to add to the description). --Capricorn4049 (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's a pretty building, and if you look at w:County Wexford, you can see coverage of Rathaspeck as a par-3 golf course. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that the golf course deserves a scope - but the building? --Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Little Darby Creek 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-10-22 23:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Little Darby Creek (Ohio) before the confluence with Big Darby Creek
Used in:
en:Little Darby Creek (Ohio)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful scope and best picture in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
CumulonimbusMexicoP1.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2017-10-23 02:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Cabin window views of Cumulonimbus

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The link to Category:Cabin window views of clouds is not well chosen and picture needs geocoding.

Open for review.
Amphimoea walkeri MHNT CUT 2010 0 160 Alto Palmar Chapare Bolivia female ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-23 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphimoea walkeri Mounted specimen female ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Scola di San Fantin (Venice) - The pediment.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-23 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Scola di San Fantin (Venice). Pediment of the facade on Campo San Fantin

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds Eglise - Groupe sculpté - Vierge de Pitié IM31000099.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-10-23 05:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Martin de Castelnau-d'Estrétefonds, France. Virgin of Pity.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and best in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Insel Helgoland - Oberland um 1929-30.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-23 09:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Historical images of Heligoland, Oberland around 1929/30
Used in:
de:Helgoland, nl:Helgoland, la:Terra Sacra (insula)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful scope and picture is best in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
Parish church St. Ulrich - Urtijëi Nave.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-23 10:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Parish church St. Ulrich, Urtijëi, Southt Tyrol, nave
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good picture and scope does not compete with the numerous VI's from Parish church St. Ulrich --Capricorn4049 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Parish church St. Ulrich - Urtijëi - High altar.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-23 10:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Parish church St. Ulrich, Urtijëi, Southt Tyrol, high altar
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, this is a different image with a more specific scope, so ok for me - it is a stunning church interior. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Other opinions? --Llez (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per DeFacto. When you are talking about thumbnails to be inserted into online articles, the fact that this is a closer-in view of the altar matters and is worth a second scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Church of the Assumption, Slovenia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yerpo Eh? on 2017-10-23 12:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Bled Island
Used in:
fr:Île de Bled, sl:Blejski otok, sr:Бледско острво etc.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scope is relevant and picture is best in scope --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tritia corniculum var. minor 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-10-23 19:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Tritia corniculum var. minor, spotted form, shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
VW Typ 60 K 10 - Porsche Typ 64 (Berlin-Rom-Wagen), Bj.1939.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-23 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche Typ 64 – side-view
Used in:
de:Berlin-Rom-Wagen, de:Otto Mathé, de:VW Käfer, en:Porsche 64, nl:Porsche 64
Reason:
The VW Typ 60 K 10 or Porsche Typ 64 was built only three times for the long-distance drive from Berlin to Rome. But because of Second World War this race did not took place. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
2017 Bukówka, Wzgórza Rogówki, Sudety.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-10-23 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Wzgórza Rogówki, Bukówka, exposure from S
Open for review.
2017 Czernik, Góry Złote, Sudety.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-10-23 20:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Góry Złote, Czernik, exposure from SW
Open for review.
2017 Dawna kopalnia uranu w Kletnie 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-10-23 21:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Former uranium mine in Kletno, entrance
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used, good image, best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
2017 Dębowa, Krowiarki, Sudety 1.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-10-23 21:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Krowiarki, Dębowa, exposure from E
Open for review.
2017 Morawka w Nowej Morawie.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-10-23 21:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Morawka (tributary of Biała Lądecka), in Nowa Morawa
Open for review.
Dampfer Barbarossa, Rhein, 1958.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-23 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Barbarossa (ship, 1903)
Used in:
de:Liste der Schiffe der Köln-Düsseldorfer Deutsche Rheinschifffahrt
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why is this picture better than the other two in the category? This picture is cropped, the other two show the whole ship. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lago di Lei as seen from Piz Grisch.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Capricorn4049 (talk) on 2017-10-23 22:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Lago di Lei
Open for review.



Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

New valued image set nominations[edit]

Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.

Closed valued image set candidates[edit]