Commons:Valued image candidates/Interior of San Pantaleone (Venice) Fonte battesimale.jpg

Interior of San Pantaleone (Venice) Fonte battesimale.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-11-20 06:20 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Interior of San Pantaleone (Venice). Font.
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)  Oppose: VI rules for buildings state quite clearly that "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)". Unless I can find something that makes this font "particularly worth of interest" such as references to it in Wikipedia or elsewhere naming it of particular interest on account of its artistic worth, its antiquity or some other feature, I must oppose this nomination on grounds that the scope is too narrow. I cannot even find either its age of the name of its sculptor. Martinvl (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment The image have captions, it is advisable to read them. Your behavior could pass for harassment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment, @Martinvl: think of the church as the museum and the 14th century font as the subject. IMHO, any work of art surviving more than 600 years is worthy of a scope of its own. DeFacto (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: , @Medium69: , @DeFacto: I have reread the caption and have amended my objection and reposted it below. Martinvl (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Oppose: VI scoping rules for buildings state quite clearly that "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)". This image does not fit into the scope "XXX (exterior)", but the age of the font makes it worthy of mention elsewhere. Since its value is independent of the church (the sculptor is unknown and there are many medieval churches and fonts in Italy), I believe it worthy of nomination in the more general scope "Medieval Baptismal fonts in Italy". If its scope were changed to something like my suggested scope, I would support its nomination. Martinvl (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your kind offer, but for now I have never bought a vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)  Support the scope is fine for me--Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)