Comment This is nominated as an inspiration. But this photo is of the redecorated box. Is the redecoration true to the original? Charles (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I suspect not, given that (a) the other photo we have of this box doesn't show it, and (b) the OMD album Dazzle ships wasn't released until 1983. 15:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment Utterly bizarre. I cannot go back in time to photograph the box as it was. Can you? However, to anyone who wants to see the box in context and as it is now, it IS the best image we have. And of course it has a commemorative plaque. Scope amended to make it clear to even the most moronic moron that it's not a historical photograph. In my world we obey the second law of thermodynamics. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate being called a moronic moron Rodhullandemu. An extraordinary comment for an admin. Please withdraw your insult and apologise. I am entitled to my opinion that this image is more valuable and appropriate for a VI scope as it does not have the recently added window decoration. I wondered why your image is not on English Wikipedia, then I noticed that you are a banned user there. Charles (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are human too. I am not going to respond to personal attacks except by blocking those who make them. Kindly judge the image for what it depicts- a notable telephone box as it is now; and the "moronic" comment refers to those who simply do not understand the VI criteria. I'm sure you'll get it now. Please feel free to put it on en:WP yourself and don't dare to dance on my grave again. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This file best depicts the subject in its current state. Also, may I just point out that no one was actually called a "moronic moron"; Rodhullandemu was simply making the scope idiot-proof. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I'll admit this is an ignorant question, so as to stave off any suggestions of moronness :-), but is this a notable scope? It seems awfully narrow to me, but if this is a particularly prominent telephone box whose decorations have been highly publicized, it may be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure notability is an issue here, but a major UK pop group of the early 1980s wrote a song about this telephone box as it is where they conducted their early business from. The scope is narrowed because an objection was made that it doesn't look as it did originally. Well, neither does Stonehenge so if anyone nominated images of it as it is now, that would be a "valid objection". That's obviously nonsense. And it is nonsense on stilts. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Roy17: Really? Unlike the unnecessary traffic cones and church in the low-res image which is its only opponent for VI? Telephone boxes are cast from moulds and therefore tend to be pretty identical. What makes this different is the relevant decoration, but not so much as to breach COM:DM, and the adjacent plaque describing its cultural importance. WOuld you like me to change the scope to indicate that it's a context view rather than a close-up? That would mean notiftying all previous voters of a change of scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, only a change of scope invokes compulsory notification. Usage is strictly irrelevant to VI, but some people like to see a nominated image in use. But I have no objection to people changing their minds. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
