The letter "ü" is common in German, but almost non-existant in English. As a curiosity, all three cities on this German road sign contain the letter "ü". -- Martinvl (talk)
Comment I will admit I took more than a moment to consider this one. It's widely used; it is nominated with a valid reason, a reason supported in the articles. There is no other image to compare it to which makes it more difficult, but it does seem to meet the criteria I believe. I admit it's obscure, but it's certainly something of interest. So I choose to support. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the scope is too narrow. Are we going to have a similar scope for each different letter from all of the world's alphabets? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Sixflashphoto, DeFacto, Archaeodontosaurus, and Ikan Kekek: The rules for a VI state clarify what one should link to as a scope. In this case, there is a valid Commons category Category:Ü, there is a valid English language article en:Ü and there is an article in 39 another languages. In other words, Ü satisfies four of the five examples given, when it is only neccesary to satisfy one of them. In such circumstances there is adequate reason for Ü to be the core of a valid scope. Martinvl (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that's not my point though. My point is that your chosen scope is too narrow. A scope of Ümight be useful, but one of Road sign with multiple occurrences of Ü is not. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".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 I have yet to change my mind that a road sign (regardless of topic) that is unique in many parts of the world doesn't deserve a unique scope but I can see your objections and don't entirely disagree with them. What did worry me is should every sign get a scope? A sign used in an project for a purpose is one thing (which this happened to be) but how many different unique signs could one think of? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Sixflashphoto, DeFacto, Archaeodontosaurus, and Ikan Kekek: In response to DeFacto's question "Are we going to have a similar scope for each different letter from all of the world's alphabets?", the answer is "Yes, provided that the image associated with the scope meets all the requirements of a VI and in particular "reflects a recommendation [suitability] for use in Wikimedia projects by the Commons community. (See here for statement context). I believe that this image meets this particular requirement". Martinvl (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Martinvl would you then go on to nominate this same image for the similar scopes for each letter (and numeral for that matter) used on it? And BTW, you haven't actually changed the scope in the "scope" field in line with your scope change declaration yet. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@DeFacto: No, because in my opinion this sign does not really highlight the use any other letters or numerals to the extent that I would use it for the any other articles, for example en:K. Martinvl (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've crossed out my opposing vote. I no longer have any conviction on whether this kind of photo should or shouldn't be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is important to maintain firm opposition to this type of VI perversion. From the very first time the controversy cost us time. it will be difficult to do for all the letters of the aphabet. Then we'll have to move on to other alphabets, Asian idograms to Gothic letters and other fonts and numbers ... Do not have more useful things to do?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
