Commons:Valued image candidates/ClarkJim(blauesHemd)1966Aug.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ClarkJim(blauesHemd)1966Aug.jpg

promoted
Image
Nominated by Spurzem (talk) on 2017-09-11 08:00 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jim Clark in 1966 in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring
Used in

Global usage

de:Jim Clark, de: Team Lotus, ca: Jim Clark, it: Storia della Formula 1
Reason I think it is an interesting image of one of the best racing-drivers -- Spurzem (talk)
Review
(criteria)
 Comment Why don't you delete this information if it is such a terrible mistake? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Jim Clark in 1966 at Nürburgring I think would be a fine scope for this. Famous driver and without a drone or since it was 1966 some other overhead shot I don’t know what single image could fulfill all of Nürburgring, so that seems good to me. If that was the scope I’d vote for this. Yes, I don’t like how the image description is formatted but it does have the necessary information and is not just a 2 word description. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have time to propose a more consensual scope. why not: {{c|Jim Clark in 1966}} in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason that wouldn't work. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose until the scope is changed by simply removing (with blue shirt) from the scope. That's a good thing to put in the file description, not the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "blue shirt" is an information that people knows who of both men is Jim Clark. But if it is such a terrible mistake for the scope it would be nice someone would remove it. But obviously you like it more to decline. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand why you have such an attitude problem and like to make such baseless statements. You're the nominator; simply change the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spurzem: the scope you proposed is too narrow - it assumes that we could have a VI for each shirt that Jim Clark wore. The scope isn't for a detailed description of the picture, it is for the generic subject of the picture. The shirt colour isn't a defining characteristic of the picture, nor is the location (there is nothing visible identifying it as the Nürburgring). Jim Clark is the defining characteristic and probably the year too (as people change with age). And the scope is the responsibility of the nominator. Sure reviewers can make comments and offer advice, but the nominator must make the change and add the VIC-scope-change template. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Es ist mir ja recht. Ich habe zur Kenntnis genommen, dass dieser nicht regelkonforme Klammerhinweis für die Beurteilung eines fast schon historischen Bildes wichtiger ist als die Bildaussage und die Bildgestaltung. Und ich habe die Lust an VI verloren. Bei dem Foto von Clay Regazzoni hatten wir doch ein ähnliches Theater; da ging es um das leichte Korn in der 40 Jahre alten Aufnahme, und an der Kernkraftwerkbaustelle störte die Kapelle seitlich im Bild, die bei den Vorverhandlungen zu dem Projekt eine Rolle spielte. Aber lassen wir's jetzt am besten. Fotografiert irgendwelche Hauser, legt eine passende Kategorie an, in der möglichst kein anderes Bild erscheint, und formuliert vor allem den Scope korrekt; dann ist VI gedient. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spurzem: I am sorry but I do not understand German. I think it would be very sad if you stopped offering your beautiful and unique historic images as VI nominations, but the scope is important to define the image correctly. Please read this, it might help you understand what we mean: Commons:Bereiche wertvoller Bilder. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean but you and some others will not understand what I mean. I have the feeling that some people look for a possibility to decline what I present. Here it is an information put in parentheses, in another old image it was slight noise (grain) and at the next one it was a chapel beside of the main object. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spurzem: you must not be too sensitive - some reviews can seem very harsh when it is just for wrong scope. For me the picture is very valuable so please just fix the scope like Archaeodontosaurus suggested above and I am sure you will get support votes! -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lothar, in the face of occasional insults from you, I really get sick of reassuring you that I am not looking for reasons to oppose anything you nominate. Instead, you should pay attention to my actions. I have supported and defended your work on many occasions and will continue to do so. And in this instance, all I want you to do is fix the scope. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope changed from Jim Clark in 1966 (with blue shirt) at Nürburgring to Jim Clark in 1966 in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring {{{3}}}

  • 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".
Thank you. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/ClarkJim(blauesHemd)1966Aug.jpg&oldid=259186878"