It's the image that best describes the subject. Other good images taken from other points of view fail at including the whole building, include disturbing trees or have inconvenient perspective effects. -- Pere prlpz (talk)
Comment This is probably the best image in commons of this building and I tend to support but I have some minor remarks, regarding the scope name. First of all, we usually add „exterior“ in the scope name moreover there is an interior category in commons about the building. Second it is always good to add also the name of the place. In my view the good scope name would be: „Casa de les Punxes, Barcelona (exterior)“. --MrPanyGoff08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some time ago, we used to choose single scopes for whole buildings. In this particular building, I don't think an "interior" scope would be interesting. You can see that none of the Wikipedia articles in any language uses images of the interior, and all infoboxes use this particular exterior image or other similar images. Then, I think this one is the most valued image of the whole building. Furthermore, the most characteristic feature of the building are the conic shaped roofs (colloquially "les punxes" in Catalan) and they can only be seen from outside.
Comment The term exterior and highly recommended, so that we can also promote the image of the inside of this building can be visited.
This building is very complex with several different fronts. A single image can not described. I suggest doing a SET, or reduce the scope to "main tower". --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No building can be completely described by a single photo, but I don't see this particular building to be complex enough (e.g. with very different parts) not to be represented by a single photo. With a single photo you can get a reasonably accurate idea about how does the building looks like and its main features. A set could be possible, but I still think a single VI would be useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support; best in scope, criteria satisfied, in my opinion. I'm mindful of Jebulon's admonition not to be overly concerned with scope. This is a good photograph and deserves recognition, I think. I see no difficulty in promoting another picture with an "(interior)" scope. This one can still be main-scope. --Walter Siegmund(talk)17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image is very good, it could easily be promoted to a slight modification of the scope. This would help to promote more images of this building. It is impossible seeing this picture to know there are six facades. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this building, there are six façades, a handful of roofs and stairs, some tens of flats, a few hundreds windows and rooms, some thousands of tiles and probably a cellar. Unfortunately, we only have 55 images of the building. Anyway, we could find a good scope for most of our 55 images, but I think this would work against usefulness of the concept of valued image.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a conclusion before closing: I still think that a single main scope fits best this particular building. Other scopes are just details (mosaics, balconies, stars, sculptures...), or different arrangements of the same elements (the other façades, that are similar to this one, or just simpler). Then I think other scopes would be interesting but they are secondary.
