Commons:Valued image candidates/Julio Terrazas u. Stephan Ackermann (2009-10-04 Sp).jpg

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

Julio Terrazas u. Stephan Ackermann (2009-10-04 Sp).jpg

promoted
Image
Nominated by Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-10-18 21:04 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cardinal Julio Terrazas Sandoval (at the left) and bishop Stephan Ackermann in Trier
Used in

Global usage

de:Julio Terrazas Sandoval, it:Julio Terrazas Sandoval,
Review
(criteria)
  •  Comment - I think this is a more useful picture of the cardinal. Is the scope including both the cardinal and the bishop an important one? I would need an explanation of why. Also, I think in your file description, you should tell viewers who don't know that the cardinal is on the left side with the bishop on the right. -- Ikan Kekek ( talk) 06:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cardinal is the man with red robe. I think that is general known. Further cardinal and bishop are named in the order from left to right. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you addressed my point that the other photo is a more useful one of just the cardinal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Can you show me a better image of cardinal Terrazas Sandoval together with bishop Stephan Ackermann in the streets of Trier? I can not imagine. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a photo of both of them together an important scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it very well might be, but it would be good for you to explain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Ikan Kekek. The scope is far to specific. A VI of the cardinal would be useful, but we don't need a VI for every cardinal with every bishop in every street of the world. And no, not everyone knows that cardinals wear red robe. If you name them from left to right, you have to state that you did so. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Palauenc05: I strongly disagree. Please see Special:Diff/263812721 --Capricorn4049 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvl: Can you please explain why only an image with one named person can be valuable? And can you tell me where I can read such a laughable rule? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Spurzem: If you visit Commons:Valued image scope#Links in the scope you will see the advice "Try to limit yourself to one link per scope, if possible. Only the most specific part of the scope should be linked;". In this case there are two people, both of whom warrant a scope - the cardinal and the bishop (assuming that this is the best image of each of them). In such cases, the image could be submitted as a VI twice, once for each person.
The meeting between Cardinal Sandoval and Bishop Ackermann had little significance at the global level, so is not worthy of a scope in its own right. If however the image depicted a historic occasion such as this meeting, then the scope would refer to the meeting rather than to the three individuals concerned.
Does this explain things? Martinvl (talk) 19:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No! For only the most specific part is linked as wished in the rule. Further: I am surprised that you feel able to rate the meeting between cardinal Tarrazas Sandoval and bishop Ackermann. It was the jubilee of 50 years partnership between bishopric of Trier and Bolivia for helping many thousands of poor people. But referring to particularity: A few days ago an image of any endive in any garden was promoted. And what about the houses in any streets which could be photographed at any time once more and perhaps better? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you give this background before? I see now that it's in the German-language file description, but when I asked you days ago to explain why this was an important scope, you refused to do so. It would really help if you had less of a chip on your shoulder and were quicker to respond to questions. Now that you've finally given an excellent argument for this scope, I  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your answer and your vote. Some days ago I was told that scopes must be short. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you to make the scope longer, just to explain in this thread why it was an important scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Julio_Terrazas_u._Stephan_Ackermann_(2009-10-04_Sp).jpg&oldid=264702561"