User talk:Spurzem/Archive 7

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel GT 1900 (2016-07-02 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good quality -- George Chernilevsky 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel GT 1900, Heck (2017-07-01 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- George Chernilevsky 20:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yamaha XS 750 u. Rennmotorrad Kreidler 50-cm³-Eigenbau (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Peulle 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yamaha XS 750 (re.) u. Kreidler-Eigenbau (Foto Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Kleinkrieg

Hallo Spurzem, Bei allem Respekt vor deinen Fotografien hier auf Commons, kannst du bitte deinen Kleinkrieg gegen A.Savin unverzüglich einstellen? Es haben mich schon mehrere Nutzer hinsichtlich dem angesprochen, deshalb schreibe ich auch hier.

Konkret geht es um:

• "Ich muss vorsichtig sein, A.Savan's [sic] Kritik zu bewerten; denn wahrscheinlich würde er mich wieder sperren" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=251547482
• "Was wollen Sie mit dieser Schikane bezwecken, und was meinen Sie konkret?" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=251658332
• "Ich habe den Eindruck, dass Sie mich provozieren wollen" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=251676991
• "Sie wollen offensichtlich Macht demonstrieren" etc. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=251698380
• "ist auch bemüht, mich hinauszuekeln" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=251743402
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hilarmont&diff=prev&oldid=251551427
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gestumblindi&diff=prev&oldid=251664201
• Und so weiter

Ich vermag, objektiv gesehen, keine Schikane zu erkennen - lediglich einen Konflikt. Also bitte sachlich bleiben und ad-personam vermeiden und friedlich, im Sinne von COM:AGF und COM:MELLOW miteinander Kommunizieren. An sich wären deine Auslassungen schon sperrbar, möchte aber noch einmal ausdrücklich darauf hinweisen so das es für die Zukunft klar ist. Also bitte löse zukünftig Konflikte sachlich, denn wenn du so so weiterfährst wird es früher oder später zu einer Sperre führen. Wer von euch beiden recht hat ist mir allerdings egal, es geht alleine darum sachlich zu bleiben. Also bitte. lg --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Steinsplitter, Dein letzter Satz ist wohl der entscheidende: Wer recht hat, ist egal. Vielleicht sollte ich den seinerzeitigen Rat befolgen und mich aus den Commons ganz zurückziehen. Viele Jahre hat es Spaß gemacht, Bilder hochzuladen und gelegentlich sogar Anerkennung zu erfahren. Inzwischen aber droht der Ärger zu überwiegen und ich frage mich, warum ich überhaupt mitgemacht habe. Wikipedia würde sicher auch ohne meine Fotos existieren. Trotzdem noch einmal zu dem, was ich mit Schikane meinte: Jahrelang verlangte niemand, zu Fotos von Fahrzeugen Kategorien anzulegen, aus denen Anlass und Ort der Aufnahme ersichtlich sind, und darüber hinaus eventuell einen Kategorienbaum zu erstellen, damit sie als brauchbar anerkannt werden können. Plötzlich aber erlässt jemand diese Vorschrift, die andere zu befolgen haben. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Woher nimmst du denn die "Vorschrift"? Du nominierst ein Bild als Qualitätsbild, jemand anderes - Admin oder nicht - meint, dass es aus diesen oder jenen Gründen nicht wäre. Darüber kann man doch diskutieren! Und wenn Alexander meint, dass es ein systematischer Mangel deiner Bilder wäre, dass sie nicht richtig kategorisiert sind, dann kannst du dem doch entgegentreten und entweder argumentieren, dass das nicht der Fall ist, dass das - aus welchen Gründen auch immer - nicht notwendig ist, oder halt das "Qualitätsbilder müssen ... brauchbar kategorisiert ... sein" aus den Regeln herausnehmen. Alles Dinge, über die man sine ira et studio reden kann. Du diskutierst aber nicht inhaltlich, sondern emotional und ad personam - und setzt dich damit automatisch ins Unrecht. Und, ja, die Qualitätsbilder sind halt eine Privatveranstaltung einiger weniger, mit eigenen Regeln usw. Ich für mein Teil weiß jedenfalls, warum ich dort nicht mitmache. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Dass QIC eine "Privatveranstaltung einiger weniger" ist, wusste ich bisher nicht. Das erklärt jetzt freilich, dass von Fall zu Fall individuell bewertet wird: mal nach der technischen Qualität eines Bildes, mal nach der Komposition, mal nach der Aussagekraft und ein anderes mal nach der Frage, ob der Fotograf eine zweite, dritte oder vierte Kategorie wählte oder erstellte, die für das Motiv absolut unbedeutend ist. Wäre es aber nicht erstrebenswert, dass das "QI-Siegel" etwas über die Qualität eines Bildes aussagt, wenn ich mir zum Beispiel aus einer großen Anzahl die guten Bilder anzeigen lasse, und nicht, dass es in eine willkürlich verlangte Kategorie eingeordnet ist? Es wäre schön, wenn die Betreiber der Privatveranstaltung QIC darüber nachdächten und Kritik nicht als schwere Beleidigung zurückwiesen. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Um es in Zahlen zu fassen: Es sind rund 150 Benutzer, die sich mehr oder minder aktiv an QIC beteiligen, angesichts der 30.000 aktiven Commons-Benutzer eine - horribile dictu - vernachlässigbare Zahl. Und: man kann ja niemanden zwingen, an bestimmten Diskussionen teilzunehmen, also z.B. auch über die Qualitätsbilder zu befinden. Es werden also immer nur diejenigen sein, die sich dort - aus welchen Gründen auch immer - wohlfühlen, die die Umstände und den Umgangston dort bestimmen.

Rein grundsätzlich befindet man sich in Commons aber in einem gewissen Widerspruch, wenn man einerseits Bilder als Qualitätsbilder auszeichnet, ansonsten aber Qualität ausdrücklich kein Kriterium ist. Die Überlegung sollte also schon bei der Frage einsetzen, an wen sich die Qualitätsbilder überhaupt richten. (Wenn man mich fragt: Nur an die Insassen von QIC - den Normalnutzer von Commons interessieren sie nicht die Bohne, der ist entweder froh, überhaupt ein Bild gefunden zu haben oder hat ganz eigene Auswahlkriterien...) --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Mir begegnen in Wikipedia, Wikivoyage usw. ziemlich oft Bilder, die nicht optimal sind. Entweder ich verbessere das selbst schnell oder ich suche was Besseres. Und genau dafür ist die Schaltfläche "gute Bilder" hervorragend geeignet. --Ralf Roleček 11:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Na ja, mag sein, dass es für dich ein nützliches Werkzeug ist - trotzdem werden diese Möglichkeiten im Allgemeinen eher selten genutzt. Vor allem, weil es eben doch sehr viele gute Bilder auch jenseits der "quality images" gibt - und weil nicht jedes qualitativ gute Bild auch wirklich zur Illustration eines Sachverhalts geeignet ist. Wir hatten grad eine entsprechende Diskussion in der Hamburger Community anlässlich der Ernennung der Speicherstadt zum Weltkulturerbe - es gibt ein von der fotografischen Qualität sehr gutes Bild aus der Speicherstadt (hat m.W. einen Preis bei WLM gewonnen) - das aber leider sehr wenig von der Speicherstadt zeigt und daher zur Illustration eher schlecht geeignet ist. Man kann auf jeden Fall lange diskutieren, was "Qualität" ausmacht und wie weit fotografische Qualität z.B. für Wikipedia wichtig ist (bei der üblicherweise kaum mehr als daumennagelgroßen Darstellung kommt es m.E. auf anderes an als auf leichte Schärfeprobleme oder Flecken - ganz zu schweigen natürlich von "richtiger Kategorisierung"). --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

QI sollte ursprünglich mal die Bilder rausfiltern, die technisch auf akzeptablem Niveau sind. Anders als bei FP, wo immer wieder mal gerne ein "Wow" verlangt wird, sollten QI einfach nur nüchtern die Qualität abklopfen. Nun sieht aber jeder Qualität anders und das ist hier das Dilemma.

Bei WLM & Co. geht es oft eher um künstlerische Qualität. Der enzyklopädische Wert ist auch so eine undefinierte Sache. Das wird nie einheitlich und von allen gleich gesehen. Bei der ganzen hier angesprochenen Geschichte gings jedoch weniger um die Qualität. Man kann das hier auch ziemlich klar sehen. Es geht um ein vernünftiges Miteinander. --Ralf Roleček 17:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Das besagte Bild war auch technisch hervorragend, nichtsdestoweniger aber vom Motiv her ungeeignet - ist aber auch egal...

Mir ist schon klar, dass es hier um das Miteinander - in einem ganz bestimmten Bereich von Commons - geht. Und ich bin keineswegs der Meinung, dass Lothar da allein den Konflikt betreibt. Allerdings verhält er sich taktisch ungeschickt, wenn er nicht rein sachlich argumentiert, sondern das Ganze auf eine persönliche Ebene schiebt. Aber letztendlich macht ihr eure Regeln bei QIC selbst, müsst also untereinander klären, was beispielsweise unter "vernünftiger Kategorisierung" zu verstehen ist. Und ich halte mich da raus, denn QIC ist nun mal - wie ja schon mehrfach geschrieben - nicht mein Arbeitsgebiet, und Grund für administratives Eingreifen sehe ich nicht. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wer sich wehrt, hat immmer Schuld. ;-) Stimmt's? -- Spurzem (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nein: wer in einer Auseinandersetzung nicht sachlich bleibt, der macht es anderen schwer, seiner Argumentation zu folgen. "Sich wehren" und "wer hat Schuld" sind da schon einmal völlig falsche Ansätze, zumindest dann, wenn man vermitteln will, dass es um sachliche Fragen geht. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Reinhard, es hat wahrscheinlich keinen Zweck, weiter unsere Standpunkte auszutauschen. Trotzdem noch mal: Wenn jemand plötzlich neue Regeln aufstellt und von anderen verlangt, sich diesen Regeln zu unterwerfen, sollte Kritik erlaubt sein, nötigenfalls mit Nennung von Namen. Als ich mich an Dich wandte, war meine Hoffnung, dass ein Wort von Admin zu Admin zur Versachlichung beitragen könnte. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Nun ja, die Regel "Qualitätsbilder sollten brauchbar kategorisiert sein" ist ja nicht neu - es geht darum, was unter "brauchbarer Kategorisierung" zu verstehen ist. Wenn du auf Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates/de gefragt hättest "Wie seht ihr das? Ich halte eine Kategorisierung in der Kategorie xyz für völlig ausreichend." hätte man das in Ruhe diskutieren können, und ich meine, eine Mehrheit hätte dir zugestimmt, dass Alexander da übers Ziel hinausgeschossen ist. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Auf einem der kritisierten Fotos zeige ich zum Beispiel einen NSU Ro 80 von 1976 und meine Frage war und ist, welche Bedeutung es für die Beurteilung des Bildes haben soll zu beschreiben, wo dieses Auto stand und aus welchem Anlass es dorthin gekommen war. Jahrelang wurde diese Information nicht verlangt und vor allem war es nicht nötig, neue Kategorien anzulegen. Freilich hätte ich eine Reihe anderer Benutzer zu befragen versuchen können, wie sie die Notwendigkeit dieser Kategorisierung einschätzen, bin aber überzeugt, dass das Ergebnis A.Savin nicht beeindruckt hätte. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Das glaube ich nun eher nicht. In der deutschen Wikipedia haben wir für so etwas die "Dritte Meinung" - wenn sich dabei ein klares Meinungsbild abzeichnet, gibt es eigentlich niemanden, der dagegen angeht, und wenn doch, wird er ziemlich schnell eingefangen. Wichtig ist halt immer, dass man sachlich bleibt, auch wenn ich verstehe, dass das manchmal schwerfällt. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Danke für Deine Verhaltensratschläge, die sicher gut gemeint sind. Aber glaube mir, dass ich sie als 75-Jähriger, der über 40 Jahre von Berufswegen täglich mit anderen Menschen zu tun hatte, sie nicht brauche. Und im Übrigen kann mir niemand ernsthaft vorhalten, in Wikipedia oder in Commons jemals ausfallend geworden zu sein. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ich bin ja nun auch kein heuriger Hase mehr und pflege gemeinhin auch einen eher direkten Ton, der einigen nicht passt (schau mal auf meine Wiederwahlseite, was sich da für Mimöschen tummeln...) Insofern: es hat niemand von "ausfallend werden" gesprochen. Es ist schlicht und ergreifend so, dass eine Wortwahl "Schikane", "provozieren wollen" usw. nicht deeskalierend wirkt und man dann halt einfach in der Sache nicht weiterkommt. Und man halt manchmal zurückrudern muss. Hab ich auch schon oft genug gemacht, ich werte das nicht als Schande, sondern als Zeichen von Intelligenz. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Na ja, dann muss ich wohl hinnehmen, dass es mir an der nötigen Intelligenz mangelt. ;-) -- Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel Kadett A, Bj. 1964 (2017-06-11 Foto Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments von vorn bis hinten scharf, Umgebung und Räder unscharf, QI --Ralf Roletschek 21:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porsche 944 Cabrio (2016-07-02 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- DeFacto 21:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel Kadett B Coupé (2016-05-01 Sp r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MGA 1600 Coupé (2017-07-01 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kreidler Eigenbau, Cockpit (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hanomag Granit 501-S (2017-04-06 r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 20:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moss Malvern (2017-06-11 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 19:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moss Malvern, Cockpit (2017-06-11 Foto Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 19:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Moss Malvern, Heck (2017-06-11 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. Could be a little bit better at the right, but IMO OK. --XRay 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Opel Rekord D GS Coupé, Heck (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --XRay 18:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gleisbaumaschine der Brohltalbahn - KLV 53-0592 (2007-06-09).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--PumpkinSky 00:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oldsmobile Special 60 V8, Bj. 1947, Heck (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maria Laach - Paradies, Teufelchen (2017-06-06).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Maybe something on the dark side above, but good for me.--Famberhorst 17:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kreidler Eigenbau, 50 cm³ (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC) GQ --Palauenc05 09:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi 100 C1 Coupé, Bj. 1976 (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 11:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, Bauzeit 1973-74 (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham, Bauzeit 1973-74, Front (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --XRay 17:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz 170, Pritsche, Bj. 1953 (2014-06-15 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirche St. Mauritius Kärlich - Mayer-Orgel 1994.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ (please add signature) --Palauenc05 20:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2007-06-17 06 Veritas RS, Bj. 1948, Cockpit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ah, the Veritas, I like that one. I hope you have more photos of the cockpit from different angles. :) --Peulle 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2007-06-17 07 Veritas RS, Bj. 1948 (Motor BMW 328).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! BMW R 25-2, Bj. 1952 (2015-09-12 3694).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DKW RT 175 (vorn), Bj. 1954, u. NSU Max (2015-09-12 3637).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 Cabriolet, Heck, Bj. 2008 (2008-12-13).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 22:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panther Kallista 2,8 L, Kühlerfigur (2015-09-12 3663).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 17:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vauxhall DX 14HP Saloon, Bj. 37 (2011-09-24 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice Are the shock absorbers still good? Were moderate in the past.--Famberhorst 16:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mercedes-Benz 220 SE Cabrio W 128 (2014-09-13 7002).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Towards the rear end slightly motion-blurred/unsharp but IMO still acceptable. Good quality. --Basotxerri 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hund mit Motorradbrille.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 11:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2007-06-16 BMW 315-1 (05b), 1490 cm³, Bj. 1935.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 11:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panther Kallista 2,8 L (2015-09-12 3660 b).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --XRay 18:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panther Kallista 2,8 L, Heck (2015-09-12 3664 b).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauer-Fahrrad 1961-68 (2017-08-02).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ford Modell A Pick-up (2017-08-02 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 14:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renault Twingo Liberty, Generation 1 (2017-07-28 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 13:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smart mhd Modell 2010-2012, Cabrio vorn (2017-07-27 Sp r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Smart mhd Modell 2010-2012, Cabrio hinten (2017-07-27 Sp r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 12:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kneipp-Denkmal, Bad Wörishofen (2017-07-29 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ford Modell A, Bj. 1928 (2017-08-02 Sp r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Manche...

...begreifen es leider nie. hilarmont \\ talk, talk, talk 15:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauer-Fahrrad 1961-68, Emblem (2017-08-02).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renault Twingo, Generation 3 (2017-07-27 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough for QI. --Peulle 13:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC) That means that the image is on principle bad, especially the background? -- Spurzem 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Renault Twingo Liberty, 1. Generation, li. vorn (2017-07-28 r).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Sputniktilt 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Komatsu WA 380, Bj. 2016 (2017-08-27 3725).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 09:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Komatsu WA 380, Bj. 2016 (2017-08-27 3723).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 09:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Komatsu WA 380, Bj. 2016 (2017-08-27 3721).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 09:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiat 500 Giardiniera, Bj. 1969 (2017-06-26 re).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ok --Sputniktilt 23:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FGS Marksburg in Koblenz (2011-07-17 Sp).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Kenneth Spencer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and Used. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Goliath Pionier – right side and front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, can you add " - front" to the scope please, to allow for a VI of the rear too. Did you take one of the rear? ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Why should it be necessary? Everybody sees that it is the right side of a small car. And why should it not be possible to have more than one VI in one category? I myself have no image from the rear. Kind regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I have done now, but I don't understand why. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: the reason is that the car cannot be defined in one view. By not qualifying the scope further (view direction is good for searching) it's impossible to have more than one VI because the scopes would be identical, so indistinguishable. Here we can now have enough discrete scopes to fully capture all aspects of the same object. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment DeFacto is right, these are recommendations that have already been announced for this type of object. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ivanhercaz (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mülheim-Kärlich, Pfarrhaus, Pfr.-Rödelstürtz-Str. 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Kenneth Spencer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and Used. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Goliath Pionier – right side and front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, can you add " - front" to the scope please, to allow for a VI of the rear too. Did you take one of the rear? ;) -- DeFacto (talk). 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Why should it be necessary? Everybody sees that it is the right side of a small car. And why should it not be possible to have more than one VI in one category? I myself have no image from the rear. Kind regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I have done now, but I don't understand why. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: the reason is that the car cannot be defined in one view. By not qualifying the scope further (view direction is good for searching) it's impossible to have more than one VI because the scopes would be identical, so indistinguishable. Here we can now have enough discrete scopes to fully capture all aspects of the same object. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment DeFacto is right, these are recommendations that have already been announced for this type of object. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ivanhercaz (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mülheim-Kärlich, Pfarrhaus, Pfr.-Rödelstürtz-Str. 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Lloyd LP300 – front of the 1950/51 model with small engine bonnet.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 9 September 2017 (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:
Lloyd LP300 – rear of the 1950/51 model.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 9 September 2017 (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:
Denny Hulme – in the paddock of Nürburgring at 1965 German Grand Prix.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2017 (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:
Gerhard Mitter – in 1965 German Grand Prix on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and very Used. Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very valuable! --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2017 (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:
Lorenzo Bandini in 1966 – in practice for German Grand Prix on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and very Used. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2017 (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:
Portrait of Lorenzo Bandini in 1966 at Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

High value for Wikipedia --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2017 (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:
Gérard Larrousse driving Porsche 908/2 in 1970 on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Used & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:29, 11 September 2017 (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:
Marksburg (Ship) at Koblenz on the Rhine.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (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:
Brian Redman driving an Alfa Romeo 33 TT at 1000 km race 1974 on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Surely VI! --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (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:
Joseph Siffert in 1969 with BMW Formula 2 during practice for Eifelrennen on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and Used. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2017 (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:
The British racing-driver John Surtees in 1965 with Ferrari‘s constructing ingeneer Mauro Forghieri at Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mülheim-Kärlich, Alte Kapelle (7) - Chorfenster (2017-09-10 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 11:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mülheim-Kärlich, Alte Kapelle (9), Dachreiter (2017-09-10 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality -- PtrQs 09:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mülheim-Kärlich, Alte Kapelle (8), außen (2017-09-10 Sp).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 11:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
The Scottish racing-driver Jim Clark in 1962 at German Grand Prix on Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

ClarkJim(blauesHemd)1966Aug.jpg

I made a proposal of scope for your image if you want to modify the scope I think this image will be elected. This image deserves it. Regards --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw your proposal. If you will modify the scope please do it. My interest of VI meanwhile is only low. Remember to the image of Clay Regazzoni too. But I don't need your positive election. The nearly 70 articles using this image are enough. Regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Kreuzweg Kärlich, 5. Station, G. Kau (2016-07-29 Sp).JPG

File:Kreuzweg Kärlich, 5. Station, G. Kau (2016-07-29 Sp).JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Themightyquill (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Jim Clark in 1966 in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support VI! --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose Please re-read COM:VISC. The "blue shirt" should be in the image description, but certainly not be part of the scope. (Der/die/das "scope" soll explizit nicht eine Beschreibung des Bildes sein, sondern ein allgemeines Thema beschreiben. Eine Art Gruppe von Bildern, ein allgemeines Motiv, eine Kategorie (aber nicht unbedingt im Sinne von "Category:") nach dem auch tatsächlich jemand suchen würde.) Jim Clark in 1966 at Nürburgring could be OK as a scope, but there's not much in that image actually depicting the Nürburgring, so I'm not sure if this image would illustrate that scope well. Jim Clark in 1966 would make sense as a scope, but for that I'd prefer File:Jim Clark.jpg. Also, please use standard machine-readable templates like {{Information}} on the file description page. --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose (with blue shirt) should be put in caption, not in the scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Why don't you delete this information if it is such a terrible mistake? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Neutral Jim Clark in 1966 at Nürburgring I think would be a fine scope for this. Famous driver and without a drone or since it was 1966 some other overhead shot I don’t know what single image could fulfill all of Nürburgring, so that seems good to me. If that was the scope I’d vote for this. Yes, I don’t like how the image description is formatted but it does have the necessary information and is not just a 2 word description. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• I think we have time to propose a more consensual scope. why not: {{c|Jim Clark in 1966}} in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  I see no reason that wouldn't work. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Oppose until the scope is changed by simply removing (with blue shirt) from the scope. That's a good thing to put in the file description, not the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The "blue shirt" is an information that people knows who of both men is Jim Clark. But if it is such a terrible mistake for the scope it would be nice someone would remove it. But obviously you like it more to decline. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you have such an attitude problem and like to make such baseless statements. You're the nominator; simply change the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: the scope you proposed is too narrow - it assumes that we could have a VI for each shirt that Jim Clark wore. The scope isn't for a detailed description of the picture, it is for the generic subject of the picture. The shirt colour isn't a defining characteristic of the picture, nor is the location (there is nothing visible identifying it as the Nürburgring). Jim Clark is the defining characteristic and probably the year too (as people change with age). And the scope is the responsibility of the nominator. Sure reviewers can make comments and offer advice, but the nominator must make the change and add the VIC-scope-change template. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Es ist mir ja recht. Ich habe zur Kenntnis genommen, dass dieser nicht regelkonforme Klammerhinweis für die Beurteilung eines fast schon historischen Bildes wichtiger ist als die Bildaussage und die Bildgestaltung. Und ich habe die Lust an VI verloren. Bei dem Foto von Clay Regazzoni hatten wir doch ein ähnliches Theater; da ging es um das leichte Korn in der 40 Jahre alten Aufnahme, und an der Kernkraftwerkbaustelle störte die Kapelle seitlich im Bild, die bei den Vorverhandlungen zu dem Projekt eine Rolle spielte. Aber lassen wir's jetzt am besten. Fotografiert irgendwelche Hauser, legt eine passende Kategorie an, in der möglichst kein anderes Bild erscheint, und formuliert vor allem den Scope korrekt; dann ist VI gedient. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: I am sorry but I do not understand German. I think it would be very sad if you stopped offering your beautiful and unique historic images as VI nominations, but the scope is important to define the image correctly. Please read this, it might help you understand what we mean: Commons:Bereiche wertvoller Bilder. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but you and some others will not understand what I mean. I have the feeling that some people look for a possibility to decline what I present. Here it is an information put in parentheses, in another old image it was slight noise (grain) and at the next one it was a chapel beside of the main object. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Spurzem: you must not be too sensitive - some reviews can seem very harsh when it is just for wrong scope. For me the picture is very valuable so please just fix the scope like Archaeodontosaurus suggested above and I am sure you will get support votes! -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Lothar, in the face of occasional insults from you, I really get sick of reassuring you that I am not looking for reasons to oppose anything you nominate. Instead, you should pay attention to my actions. I have supported and defended your work on many occasions and will continue to do so. And in this instance, all I want you to do is fix the scope. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Jim Clark in 1966 (with blue shirt) at Nürburgring to Jim Clark in 1966 in front of the Lotus stand at the Nürburgring {{{3}}}

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support New scope, New start for the grand prix! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support As above. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, thank-you for this image. Useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support. Thank you for changing the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Still VI! --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Yes per everyone above! Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• @El Grafo: I'm not sure anyone informed you of the scope change here - you may want to reconsider your assessment. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Chaparral 2D driven by Joakim Bonnier at practice on Nürburgring in 1966.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Crowd at the start of the 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:36, 23 September 2017 (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:
Jackie Stewart at practice of 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973 with Ford Capri in section Hohe Acht.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 23 September 2017 (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:
Chris Amon with BMW 3.5 CSL at 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Lloyd LP 400 – front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment, the scope is too specific, "Lloyd LP 400 - front" would be better. The other info belongs in the file description. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support, thanks, for me now useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2017 (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:
Borgward Hansa 2400 II – front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment, the scope is too specific, "Borgward Hansa 2400 II - front" would be better. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Borgward Hansa 1500 Sportcoupé – front.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, the scope is too specific. "Borgward Hansa 1500 sportcoupé - front" would be fine. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. But sometimes it is not easy. Either the scope is too simple or it is too specific. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I know! :-) A rule-of-thumb for standard cars is use make/model/generation and view direction (front or rear). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Support, good now - useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very interesting --Archaeodontosaurus (talk ) 05:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Extremeley rare shot in fine quality. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Four door Borgward Isabella – rear.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Le-Mans-Start zum 1000-km-Rennen 1965 auf dem Nürburgring.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)