Commons:Valued image candidates/IBM 72 im Unterricht (Sp).JPG

IBM 72 im Unterricht (Sp).JPG

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Spurzem (talk) on 2021-02-22 20:27 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Fast writing training at the ball head typewriter IBM 72
Used in	Global usage de: Zehnfingersystem
Review (criteria)	Support Only the old guys among us remember that funny kind of writing. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Provisional  Oppose: the scope is unsuitable, it is merely a description of the image itself. I propose the scope of "Person typing at IBM 72 typewriter". —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)  Comment I can't see why that should be an improvement. The category is correctly addressed, while the rest, of course, briefly describes the image. Locically, it leads from the category to the motif and thus a scope is created. So where is the problem? --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)  Support The more precise a scope, the less problem there is. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) oppose (based just on scope) - I don't understand how this could be an appropriate scope. If we get this specific, absolutely anything that's in use can be VI. Why not just create a category for the IBM 72 (we have several pictures), and then use "IBM 72 typewriter, in use"? — Rhododendrites talk |  01:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: If you have no idea about something, it is best not to say anything and above all to refrain from giving negative reviews. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC) If you think I have no idea, wouldn't it be more productive to explain why my suggestion is bad or why your scope is appropriate, rather than to scold? — Rhododendrites talk |  15:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC) There are of course different possibilities for this scope. But Spurzem is absolutely right, one can comment, propose, suggest or whatsoever, but why oppose right away? For me it's also a matter of style. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Since VIC operates according to simple majority vote, if I comment instead of oppose, the image is promoted tomorrow and no issue is addressed. It's unfortunate, but the way our process is set up. I would be happy to change my vote to support if the issue is addressed, of course. To me the scope is not appropriate per COM:VIS. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I was about to create the other category myself, since there are several "IBM 72" pictures, but it seems like the model was rebranded (and better known as) the Selectric I. So perhaps "IBM Selectric I, in use" would be ideal? Or is there a difference I have missed? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)  Comment I'm going to continue to avoid voting pro or con on any nominations by Spurzem. The only thing I'd say for the discussion is that in general, I believe I understand correctly that scopes should be visible except when it comes to specific formatting for identifying artworks, artists and the like, and in that sense, it seems like it would make sense to subtract some unnecessary words from the scope (we don't see the specific course she was taking, for example, just that she's typing). The photo is unquestionably useful, so it's only the phrasing of the scope that's at issue. Carry on; I don't plan to participate further in this discussion but hope my remarks might help you all break the stalemate, find a consensus scope and promote this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I'm going to continue to avoid voting pro or con on any nominations by Spurzem - should I not ask what this means? — Rhododendrites talk |  19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @Rhododendrites: The Selectric was an evolution of IBM 72. In the photo is clearly seen an IBM 72. And the girl is preparing for a test in fast typing. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying. I take your word for the correctness of the typewriter model. The problem with the scope is that it combines "schoolgirl" + "IBM 72" + "fast writing training" + "around 1975". It might be useful to combine two of those, but I'd argue that we should have separate scopes for "IBM 72, in use", [something like] "typewriter training", "students with typewriters", etc. Perhaps this image could even be VI in multiple scopes? I just don't think VI is useful if we can combine so many elements. Would it also be appropriate to have e.g. "Schoolgirl doing fast writing training at the ball head typewriter IBM 72 around 1976"? If not, then perhaps the year is unnecessary. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC) It seems interesting to me to say what the girl is doing (she obviously doesn't do any office work), what typewriter it was and when the picture was taken. Of course, the scope could have been called something else. At this time, the picture is only available in the article "Zehnfingersystem". The scope could also have been formulated according to this. You can see that she writes with all her fingers and only looks at the template. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @ Spurzem I've taken the liberty of shortening the scope a bit. I hope, you don't mind. I suppose, everyone can be happy now an support this nomination. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you. I let myself be surprised. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)  Support Voila. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)  Support in this scope, and no need to thank me, Spurzem. OK, returning to ignoring your nominations... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC) It's time to stop sulking, anyway! ;-) --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Result: 4 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)