This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Christophorusschule Mülheim-Kärlich in June 2017, view from northwest. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Parish church St. Mauritius in Mülheim-Kärlich, view from west in 1976. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Construction of the Christophorusschule Mülheim-Kärlich in August 2016, view from northwest. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Miraculous image in the chapel Maria Hilf (Koblenz-Lützel), probably 17th century. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Kötztinger Pfingstritt 1997, in front the leader with cross. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Kötztinger Pfingstritt 1997, traced back to a vow from 1412, always accompanied by the town's pastor. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud III from 1964, front and left side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sculpture “Rabe mit Wurm” by Stefan Zydek in the Schlossgarten of Koblenz. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Brauchtum in Treis-Karden: Honoring the dead of the World Wars in Karden. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Benedikt Müntnich, former abbot of Maria Laach in 2013. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Portrait of the Belgian race driver Lucien Bianchi in 1968. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bauer Bicycle, model “Sport”, produced from 1961 to 1968. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: José Carlos Pace in 1973 driving Ferrari 312 PB at 1000 km Nürburgring, section Hatzenbach. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: 1962 German Grand Prix: Graham Hill, John Surtees and Dan Gurney in the section Hatzenbach. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Left rear wheel of Aston Martin DB4 from 1960 made by Borrani. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: BMW Isetta in police service from 1957 to 1968, here at Internationale ADAC Moselschiefer-Classic 2015. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mercedes-Benz 170 S Cabriolet B from 1950 with closed roof, rear and left side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Historical book from 1744 about the Rhine in the Rhein-Museum Koblenz. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment It might be best to identify this picture as the frontispiece and title page of [Name of Book], 1744 by [Name of Author] in [Name of Museum]. Though if you'd prefer to just put that information in a file description on the file page and leave the scope as is, I'd be happy to help with that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I see the German text on the title page but don't know more. Do you know the name of the author? If not, I can just do my best to translate your German-language description into English and add that to the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
That's OK. I tried my best to translate your file description into English, but I might have misunderstood some of it, so I'd be happy if anyone edited anything I got wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: German racecar driver Jochen Neerpasch in 1973. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Porsche 718 (Formula Two) of Carel Graf Godin de Beaufort in Het National Automobielmuseum, Leidschendam; rear. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Porsche 718 (Formula Two) of Carel Graf Godin de Beaufort in Het National Automobielmuseum, Leidschendam; front and right side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Detail of Agfa Isolette II from 1955: lens and shutter with self timer. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Coffee substitutes: Original packs of Seelig’s candied grain coffee from the 1930s in the Stadtmuseum Mülheim-Kärlich. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Pear tree planted by Sebastian Kneipp in 1894 in Bad Wörishofen, felled in 2008. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Engine of DKW RM 350 from 1953 with view to alternator and distributor. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Engine and gearbox of DKW SS 350 from 1939, view from rear. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mercedes-Benz SSKL from 1931 in the historical paddock of Nürburgring, rear. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: 1927 Mercedes-Benz S in the historical paddock of Nürburgring. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bizzarrini GT 5300 being built from 1964 to 1968 in racing version, rear and right side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Jaguar 3½ litre Mark IV from 1948, front and left side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Audi A3 (8P7) Cabriolet from 2008 with closed roof, side view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Schokkers in art on the Rhine near Koblenz around 1950, water color by Hermann Spurzem. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Heligoland in art, view from north, oil painting on canvas by Hermann Spurzem, dated 1938. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Horch 8, Typ 303, Bj. 1927 (museum mobile 2013-09-03)DKW ZSW 500, Bj. 1929, rear (2013-09-03 Sp)Wanderer, Bj. 1914 (2013-09-03 museum mobile)
Dear Spurzem:
I do not want to but will oppose all three of the enclosed images based on the long, wordy descriptions that you have written as VI scopes for each. It is my opinion that the scopes, as written, do not define a useful generic field for VI nomination and disqualify the image for VI, even if the images have merit.
Please re-read the information in COM:VICR and COM:VIS on scopes being a generic field (not a long unique description) where the nominated image is the most valuable. This is the key point.
This is fixable. With your various auto, motorcycle and bike images, a more suitable scope (just right) should be just the model, or model (year), of that method of transport, with the VI claim being that yours is the most valuable image of a particular model (or model (year)) of that transport, (with linked category). This is similar to the VI scopes of birds and animals are being nominated as the most valuable of a given species or sub-species.
Please email me for further discussion if my thoughts are not clear.
Hallo GRDN711, I don't know if you are the chief editor commissioned by Wikimedia. But I don't care about that either. Anyway, I get the impression that you enjoy bullying others, at this time especially me. That's a pity, but probably not to change. Sometimes a scope is too short for you, sometimes it is too long; in any case, you think it's wrong. - I'm 80 years old now and I've been uploading photos to the Commons for 16 years, a lot of them very rare ones. I've also been involved in the Valued Images project for a few years, but I'm gradually getting tired of it because my strength and time are too precious to argue with people like you. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Better VI scopes in keeping with COM:VIS
Dear Spurzem:
You are not being singled out. You just have so many VI nominations right now and you write overly descriptive scopes that are too long and not in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”. Read COM:VIS in German and English. I had to do it several times but it does describe a "just right" scope well.
Sorry, your age (a young 80) does not give you a pass on writing better VI scopes. You can write in HTML code in a non-native English language; you can operate your computer and work on the internet; I am sure you can operate your cell phone. These are impressive skills that not many have.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: McLaren M7B of Vic Elford at practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment@Spurzem: IMHO, the scope is too narrow and overly descriptive. "McLaren M7B of Vic Elford" might be a more appropriate scope but would like to hear your thoughts on why this image was nominated as most valuable and for what scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@GRDN711: I didn't know there was a second picture in the commons that was taken at this point and time. But if you have one, introduce it. I don't make a living from my photo being awarded. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment The time and place are of interest, but are seldom relevant as part of a scope for a car, person or animal. There are many exceptions, but this isn't one (Elford's not actually at practice, just sitting in the car). Good scopes could be McLaren M7B of Vic Elford or McLaren M7B (1969) of Vic Elford (if the M7B ran in different liveries etc.) Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: That's right: Elford is sitting in the car, not in the race, but during practice on Nürburgring for the German Grand Prix 1969. I don't understand what's wrong and why this almost 53 year old photo might not be valuable. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course it is valuable, but do we need the exact event and date for the scope? Anyone interested can find the additional detail in the file description. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If I hadn't mentioned the event and year in the scope, someone else would probably miss it. Opinions are so different. -- Spurzem (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I expect they might... There is no problem unless someone else thinks they can have a scope of the same race car/livery/driver parked on some other circuit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Spurzem: I am trying not to oppose your VI nomination but will do so with the current scope. This scope is too descriptive (too narrow) such that per COM:VIS, it does not define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Charles offered a couple of good options for you to consider. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@GRDN711: I'm getting enough. Every bird egg, every snail, every shell, etc., which could be photographed again at any time, is highly praised here. But a 53-year-old photograph of a motorsport event, unique in the Commons, you obviously want to smash. If you have something personal against me, please tell me. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Regretfully I am objecting to this VI nomination as the scope, as currently defined, as being too narrow and descriptive per COM:VI and COM:VIS. I hope I have been clear about the nature of my objection and have provided options should you wish to correct.
Valued Image is a consensus process of many photographers. If I am regarded as incorrect in my thinking on this, others will out-vote me in support.
My objection is not personal. I am half-way around the world from you and do not know you. I assume you are a photographer with a good heart who is serious about nominating your image for a VI rating. I suggest you address the scope issue I have raised.
The photographers who are nominating “every bird egg, every snail, every shell, etc.” follow the domain-specific scope guidelines per COM:VIS that have been specifically written for birds and animals. From my observation, they are also careful about nominating only one image for each scope category (typically species or sub-species) that is obviously the most valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support I think there are different possibilities to define that scope. To me it's acceptable as it is, the image is valuable, anyway. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Palauenc05: @Spurzem: You are right. There is more than one way to define a scope, but it should be in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
In my opinion, the current scope “McLaren M7B of Vic Elford at practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring” is a layered description of the image rather than the more concise generic field or category required by the COM:VIS as a scope definition.
Charles and I have offered two scope suggestions for Spurzem to consider – “McLaren M7B of Vic Elford” or “McLaren M7B (1969) of Vic Elford” that should meet COM:VIS guidelines for a “just right” scope that is not too narrow or wordy. I personally think that if the scope could be cleaned up, this image would then meet all 6 criteria for a Valued Image rating. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to oppose vote now as Spurzem would take that as a personal insult. But has no justification for suggesting GRDN711 "obviously want to smash" his nomination. I agree with GRDN711's detailed analysis. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Flagman protects the Level crossing of Brohltalbahn in Niederzissen. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Oppose While image has VI potential, per COM:VIS, the scope is too descriptive and wordy (scope too narrow) to define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Would you consider a scope that is less wordy, yet wider and simpler – “Brabham BT26A race car of Piers Courage (1969)"? --GRDN711 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I have the impression that, for personal reasons, GRDN711 rejects pictures I have presented that are rare and photographically not objectionable. I don't know where the reasons are. That will probably remain his secret. I find such behavior not only uncollegial, but extremely shabby. -- Spurzem (
talk) 09:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear GRDN711, I doubt that you have personal dislikes for Spurzem or other colleagues here. But I wish we could concentrate on the basic idea of this project again, that is the promotion of valuable images, rather than chasing descriptive elements in scopes. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Palauenc05: @Spurzem: I consider all photographers to be people with good hearts so let’s focus on the key issue here is the same problem with scopes found in several of Spurzem's ten or so VI nominations.
Scopes should be written in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
The scope for this VI nomination “Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring” is a layered description of the image rather than the more concise generic field or category required by the COM:VIS as a scope definition.
The scope issue here is fixable. I have made my case and offered a suggestion for a revised scope that should meet VI requirements. That’s all I can do. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment I agree with GRDN711 and suggest that Spurzem removes his accusation that GRDN711's actions are "extremely shabby". No one is saying your old photos are not valuable; the suggestion is to alter the VI scope. Palauenc05; please read the scope guidelines again. The way that this scope is formulated means that its only competition in VI could be another photo of the Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring. This is clearly far too restrictive. VI is not designed as you suggest for "the promotion of valuable images" It is to choose the most valuable image within a generic scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Are valuable and rare photos rated here or any descriptions to the taste of any self-proclaimed experts? And do you know a better photo of Brabham BT26A with Piers Courage from 1969 in the Commons? The problem seems to be that this photo comes from Spurzem. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Believe it or not, I know the guidelines quite well. The question is if we should waste our time by chasing any descriptive element in a scope. Some people define a scope more explicitly, others (me f.ex.) prefer a very short scope. Anyway, this nitpicking, recently started by GRDN711, is getting on my nerves. That's why I won't contibute to this discussion anymore. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, the VI project is all about nitpicking! Without attention to detail, the project becomes meaningless. For my animals VIs, the constructive nitpicking of Archaeodontosaurus has improved my VI submissions. I nitpick too all the time on his nominations. Spurzem does not seem to wish to engage with constructive criticism, preferring to consider every objection as a personal attack. That is unfortunate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Support I cannot physically follow all the discussions. But here's a consideration for VI: The more specific a scope is, the less contention there is. This is the case here. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: @Spurzem: We are in agreement, Archaeodontosaurus, that a less wordy, more specific scope is generally better, and COM:VIS supports this as well. The location information is not needed for this VI nomination and can be placed in the image description.
If Spurzem would consider changing the scope to a more specific “Brabham BT26A race car of Piers Courage (1969)” in keeping with COM:VIS, I will support it. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Horch 8, Type 303, from 1927 in the museum mobile of Audi Forum in Ingolstadt, front and right side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment@Spurzem: Scope is too descriptive (too narrow) per COM:VIS to define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Please give some thought to providing a better one (just right). Would it be the most valuable “Horsch 8 Type 303 (1927)”? --GRDN711 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose@Spurzem: Scopes should be written in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
The scope for this VI nomination “Horch 8, Type 303, from 1927 in the museum mobile of Audi Forum in Ingolstadt, front and right side” is a layered description of the image based on what you think make the image unique and valuable but is not the more concise generic field or category required by COM:VIS as a scope definition.
The scope issue here is fixable. I have offered one suggestion for a revised scope that should meet VI requirements. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: It is not about this image being appropriate for VI consideration. IMO, if the scope were better, it would be VI. The issue is about the scope as written for this image being too descriptive per the COM:VIS guidelines.
How many times have you opposed the VI nomination of an animal species because it was not perfect in following the COM:VIS guidelines on scope form for animals - scientific name (English-language vernacular name) [, subscope], e.g., Zygaena lonicerae (Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet), pupa? The answer is, many times, Archaeodontosaurus.
It's the same in writing scopes for the more general topics. COM:VIS has guidelines for what makes an acceptable scope and they should be followed if the Valued Image rating system is to be kept coherent and valuable for the future. If the scope can be anything you want, then all images are valuable and there is no need for a VI rating system. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment True for the scope guidelines for art but this is not a work of art; it's a mass-produced automobile. --GRDN711 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@GRDN711: Gradually it gets crazy: we have to say of a painting or a sculpture where it hangs or stands. But it is not allowed to say where a historic car is exhibited? On the other hand: When I presented a car in QI some time ago, I had to name the geo data. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Spurzem: If you read the guidelines in COM:VIS on what makes a good scope, there is no requirement for location information to be part of any scope. This includes the 5 Domain-specific scope guidelines such as topics such as ani8mals, plants, buildings, natural sites and works of art. It is sometimes mentioned in the scope of art works as it can help to identify the specific work of art, but there is no requirement for location information to be there.
Location, GPS coordinates and any other information concerning the image are all good to have but should be placed in the image description.
In general, a less wordy, more specific scope is encouraged in COM:VIS as being best at defining “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
As I tried to present in my oppose, IMHO “Horsch 8 Type 303 (1927) – front and right side” is a shorter, better scope in keeping with COM:VIS. The VI claim would be that this image is the most valuable in Commons of this particular model of car, year and view. I would support VI for this image with that scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@GRDN711: Believe me: Gradually I've enough. I'm now thinking of retiring here. Then I won't bother you anymore with my in your eyes probably photographic scrap and my super stupid scopes. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: One of 53 Horch 670, built from 1932 to 1934, in the museum mobile of Audi Forum in Ingolstadt, front and left side. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment@Spurzem: Scope is too descriptive (too narrow) per COM:VIS to define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Please give some thought to providing a better one (just right). You know cars best. Would a scope of “Horch V12 Cabriolet 670 (1932 - 1934)” or something similar be appropriate? --GRDN711 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of the criticism, but thank you anyway for taking such an interest in my applications. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose with regret, based on my previous comment on the scope being layered with unnecessary description such that it does not define a useful generic field for VI nomination. I have provided information per COM:VIS elsewhere on this page describing this issue, and offered suggestiions. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment@Spurzem: @Archaeodontosaurus: @Palauenc05: I see some agreement in your comments that shorter and more specific is better for VI scopes. Also, COM:VIS actively discourages scopes that are too wordy (too narrow) and there is no requirement for location information to be part of any VI scope (can be placed in the image description).
As I tried to present in my oppose, IMHO “Horch V12 Cabriolet 670 (1932 - 1934)” is a more specific, better scope and in keeping with COM:VIS. The VI claim would be that this image is the most valuable in Commons for this particular model of car, range of years. I would support VI for this image with that scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Wanderer motorcycle from 1914, left side, in the museum mobile of Audi Forum in Ingolstadt. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Oppose Scopes should be written in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”. Here the generic field or category is this motorcycle model in 1914 with a left side view. The location information in the scope is superfluous and not needed.
I suggest changing the scope to “Wanderer motorcycle (1914) – left side” and would support this image for VI with that scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: De Tomaso Pantera, side view left. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
_1976.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
_bearb.jpg)
_bearb_Sp.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.JPG)
_1976.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_bearb.jpg){kind=link}
_bearb_Sp.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.JPG){kind=link}