Comment Best illustration of the subject and all lighthouses in Wisconsin for that matter. Good image page, geolocated, and categories.-- Slaunger13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what do you mean by "illustration of the subject" ? What subject: "lighthouses in Wisconsin", or "lighthouses" in general ? For an illustration of lighthouses in general, I'd expect one visibly close to the sea, located in some dunes, on a cliff, close to a port, on an island, or whatever... If you want an illustration of lighthouses in Wisconsin, than I don't know, as I have no idea what would be their particularities. Or is the subject "Wind Point Lighouse"? In that case, you can have thousands of valued images if you pick the best for each subject you can imagine. --LimoWreck18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a good question. Thank you for asking that. It made me rethink why I support the image. In principle it could be nominated as being the most valueable image of (general to specific) a lighthouse, all lighthouses in Wisconsin, or w:Wind Point Lighthouse. I agree with you that it is probably not the most valued image of a lighthouse on Commons for the reasons you mention (haven't really looked though). I think it is the best image of all lighthouses in Wisconsin, but is that valuable for Wikimedia projects? No, I doubt it. I cannot envision, e.g., a Wikipedia article dealing only with lighthouses in a state. So, no it is not at that level I see it as valuable either. Then, we have the lowest detail level, the "w:Wind Point Lighthouse" as a specific Lighthouse in a specific state in a specific country. I think it is the best image of that lighthouse, but is it valuable (enough) for Wikimedia projects? This is where it get's interesting. For this particular lighthouse it seems (from reading the Wikipedia article) that it is not just some arbitrary lighthouse. It is one of the oldest and tallest lighthouses at the Great lakes, it was designed by what seems to be a fairly well-known lighthouse architect, and it is in the National Register of Historic Places. Adding all these bits of value together it makes it to VI for me. Others may reach different conclusions. But I would not support a VI candidate image of just any lighthouse, which nobody cares about. Can there be very many VIs? Yes, quite a lot, but not of every subject you can image. The subject has to be of some interest to Wikimedia projects and this one makes the cut for me. It is also in the favour of the image that it is photographically an excellent image. Hope that clarified a little bit what I see VI is about - at least it did for me. ;-) -- Slaunger19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scope is too narrow. Unless there is something remarkable about this particular lighthouse the scope needs to be broader; otherwise we will have to accept a new Valued Image for each separate building in the world. Suggest re-applying with a better scope. -- MichaelMaggs17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If it is only the best image of the building that isn't sufficient. I don't think it's the best lighthouse image. It may be the best Wisconsin lighthouse, if you want to renominate for that. Superm401 - Talk09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
