Commons:Valued image candidates/Santa Maria in Vallicella (new church), Rome, Italy.jpg

Santa Maria in Vallicella (new church), Rome, Italy.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-07-21 15:53 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Santa Maria in Vallicella (Rome) - Facade by night
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)  Oppose daytime image is better. No need for night images to have VI scopes. See VI scope guideline "In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture." Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)  Comment The systematic denigration of certain competitors poses problems in VI but also in FP. Here the scope is perfectly acceptable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)  Comment I shall resist responding to a rare insult from our most responsible and fair contributor. If we are to prefer a nighttime image, then the VI guidelines should be changed, They could not be clearer: "In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture." Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)  Support Nice photo, but talk about the scope. I think "at night" scopes can be perfectly fine, so since this scope might be usable, it can be perfectly reasonable to support this with a remark that it "could be useful," so I'll do that. But that said, it's not like there is special night illumination on this facade. So let's talk about the wording Charles quotes from above. "The VI for a building scope" seems to me to imply that there should generally be one VI per building. However, another reading is that the overall VI for the building would normally be a daylight picture, but there could be a separate "at night" scope. I would agree that we should have a discussion at Commons talk:Valued image scope, except that such discussions generally get nowhere, as there's a preference to work by custom at VIC, regardless of what policies and guidelines there are. But my friend Archaeodontosaurus, please be respectful. Charles has a valid point, and I don't think his point is ad hominem against either Jebulon, who took the photo, or Sebring12Hrs, who made the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Absolutely agree. The argument is admissible but the problem is deeper. The propensity to want to set himself up as a perpetual censor: Charles begins to pose problems. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)  Comment I don't agree with you on this. I think his arguments are generally valid, and that we've resolved things with discussions every time, but it would really be better to more clearly harmonize Commons guidelines with accepted customs on VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)