Commons:Valued image candidates/Beaune hospice cour ass 1.jpg

Beaune hospice cour ass 1.jpg

undecided

Image
Nominated by	Martinvl (talk) on 2016-12-15 18:32 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Beaune Hospice Courtyard (west and north sides)
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Support Better than the other candidate. Yann (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)  Oppose (with current scope), the scope, I think, is too broad. Three of the photos show the west and north sides and the other shows the west and south sides. I think the scope for the three should be "Beaune Hospice Courtyard (west and north sides)" and for the other "Beaune Hospice Courtyard (West and south sides)". This will allow valued images showing all the aspects of the building. DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Scope changed from Beaune Hospice Courtyard (Western side) to Beaune Hospice Courtyard (west and north sides) --Martinvl (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Comment @Yann and DeFacto: : I have changed the scope of this image as per the suggestion by Defacto and his associated "Oppose" vote. Please reconsider your votes? Martinvl (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment, @Martinvl: for an MVR all images must be nominated under essentially the same scope. You need to change the other three too I think - and the title of the group, of course. DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC) I am against such very narrow scopes. Even with a wider scope, this one is the best. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment, @Yann: it's normal for multi-faceted buildings to have multiple scopes (view from north, view from south, etc.) to allow valued images of views from different angles. The same should be true for this building in my opinion. DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC) IMO there is often an abuse of subscopes for buildings. And this is one case. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @Yann: this building has several aspects, why not accept a VI of each? Please explain your reasoning and especially your use of the word "abuse". DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @DeFacto: : Please read Commons:Valued image scope#Buildings. In that section you will see "When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, thus leading to two independent VI nominations for two independent scopes". In this case, the courtyard is the most spectacular part of the exterior which is why Yann is quite right. Martinvl (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC) The courtyard needs at least two aspects to do it justice, which is why we need to allow room for two and just one is not enough. Apart from that, all the images in an MVR should be nominated with the same scope, and the title should also be of that one scope. There are two scopes amongst the nominations in this MVR, so how can we assess this? All that is required is to change the scope on the title and on the other two nomination with the same scope as this one - to match the scope on this nomination and to remove the other nomination from this MVR. DeFacto (talk). 17:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. Beaune, Hotel-Dieu - panoramio - Frans-Banja Mulder.jpg: -1 2. Beaune hospice cour ass 1.jpg: -1 <-- 3. Beaune Hôtel-Dieu Ehrenhof 5.JPG: -1 4. Hostel Dieu Beaune.jpg: 0 => File:Beaune, Hotel-Dieu - panoramio - Frans-Banja Mulder.jpg: Undecided. File:Beaune hospice cour ass 1.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Beaune Hôtel-Dieu Ehrenhof 5.JPG: Undecided. File:Hostel Dieu Beaune.jpg: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 09:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)