Oppose I find the scope "general view" too narrow. But would probably promote it for a scope without that restriction. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we have at most an exterior and an interior scope for buildings. In this outside view, the interior is even visible. So why any restriction? --Ikar.us (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect encyclopedia article should be perfectly illustrated. Perfectly illustrated article means that there are good photos for all its main aspects. So, the scopes in VI represents these exactly aspects. In most of the cases, every main aspect should have its own scope in VI. With VI project we stimulate people to upload good photos for every scope - meaning main aspects of some subject - so that we can provide perfect photo-resources for perfect articles............... When it comes to architecture (buildings and structures, monuments also) in most of the cases there are three main aspects which should be illustrated well - 1. General view (photography)=Master Plans / Situation (architecture). 2. Exterior (photography)=Facade (architecture) and 3. Interior (both photography and architecture). Some structures such as Stadiums and Monasteries has one more main aspect - Inside view (not to be confused with interior). So these are the main aspects when we talk about buildings and structures. If we don't have good photos of these aspects we cannot create a good article. That's why these kind of scopes are already formed in VI. For some buildings with great importance even we can create additional scopes which represents some specific fragments. The nominated photo here gives us a general information about the shape of the structure and mostly about the situation of the stadium within the city. These kind of photos are very very important and highly valuable (few people can take such a photo). At the same time it gives not enough idea of the exterior - meaning more detailed view of the facade. The perfect article about this stadium should has photos of these three aspects/scopes 1. General view. 2. Exterior and 3. Inside view. In this case the Interior (meaning views of the foyers, sport museum halls and so on) is not a must. Greetings --MrPanyGoff12:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provide one more example about the difference and importance of both General View and Exterior. 1.(here) and 2. (here). Obviously we need both of them.--MrPanyGoff12:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term "General view" is better than "Aerial view" because some people understands the last one only as taken from the helicopter, airplane or deltaplane while these photos can be taken form skyscrapers, TV towers and city hills.--MrPanyGoff12:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikar.us. the addition '(general view)' can be dropped here, the image being a good depiction of the whole structure. Moreover, in case of stadiums, interior (and inside) views are not always really distinctive, at the review size, from a stadium to another. In the case of this specific stadium, it seems that it isn't its interior which is the most remarkable, accordind to the :en:article, but its construction on the whole. --Myrabella (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
