Commons:Valued image candidates/Horch 8, Typ 303, Bj. 1927 (museum mobile 2013-09-03).JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Horch 8, Typ 303, Bj. 1927 (museum mobile 2013-09-03).JPG

promoted
Image
Nominated by Spurzem (talk) traced on 2022-03-16 12:06 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as 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
Used in Global usage
Review
(criteria)
Thank you for your criticism and the instructions. The only problem is that I don't get the point. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Support Given its age, it can be considered a work of art in a museum.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
 Comment For a work of art you need: the title, the author, and the place of exhibition : the scope is perfectly formatted. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
  •  Support Per Archaeo. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Horch_8,_Typ_303,_Bj._1927_(museum_mobile_2013-09-03).JPG&oldid=643572794"