|
|
View |
Nominated by:
Thi (talk) on 2024-05-29 21:59 (UTC) |
Scope:
George Eliot by François D’Albert Durade |
Used in:
en:George Eliot |
Comment Following the example of other works to art in this forum, the museum or location where the art work was photographed is usually listed in round brackets at the end of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the practice can make nominating more complicated. It could be useful if there are several different artworks with the same name. It is easier to see the value and use of less famous artworks as part of public collections, but some artworks can be in private collections or archives. --Thi (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk | on 2024-05-31 01:43 (UTC) |
Scope:
Frank Pepe Pizzeria, exterior |
- Comment I don't think every restaurant/store/building is worth a scope; unless it is notable Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- So you took the time to leave this comment on three nominations but didn't bother to actually check whether they're notable? (They are.) — Rhododendrites talk | 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Useful on wikipedia.en, so it's notable to me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk | on 2024-05-31 01:50 (UTC) |
Scope:
Scarr's Pizza, exterior |
- Comment I don't think every restaurant/store/building is worth a scope; unless it is notable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia article created by Rhododendrites Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
So here's what happened. Charles left the same bankrupt message on three nominations insinuating these are three nominations of non-notable random businesses. In fact, all three are notable and have Wikipedia articles. Now, instead of saying "oh, my bad" and either striking or, I don't know, supporting?, he has dug into these articles and found that another way to try to undercut it. I do not know what motivates you with this stuff. Yes, I did create it. I'm a Wikipedian. I create articles about notable topics. Been doing it for a while. Sometimes I even take a photo for those subjects, and sometimes that photo is the only photo we have, so it winds up being a VIC. That's what this process is for. If you don't think it's notable, nominate the article for deletion, but it will be kept because it's clearly notable. — Rhododendrites talk | 13:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment A very intemperate and sad response from. I am entitled to say that a scope is not justified due to lack of notability. I do it regularly with people and buildings and bits of buildings. Why do I do this? Because I have read the VI guidelines
A VI scope demands that 'Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope.
The guidelines state that 'Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason.
The guidelines do not cover pizza restaurants. The guidelines are routinely ignored by many nominators and voters.
A Wikipedian creating an article does not suddenly made a restaurant notable. Articles can remain because no one is that concerned to them nominate for deletion.
So my messages were not bankrupt. They were likes they always are. And I didn't even oppose your nominations. I checked the Rizzo's Fine Pizza image and it wasn't used anywhere I could find, so I posted my comment. If you think an image is the most valuable for a scope, why not put it in an article on enwiki or some other wiki? I do not know what motivates you with this personal attack on me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Challenging a comment that is false on its face and expressing dismay that you are not only standing by it but doubling down is not a personal attack. You left three messages on three nominations implying none of them are notable. I responded to one pointing out that yes, they are notable. At that point, you could have just said "oh my mistake", but instead you did some digging. You found that I created one of them, and used that to make another notability claim (without, of course, modifying your comments on the nominations related to two articles I did not create). What is clear is you (a) do not understand what notability means on Wikipedia, (b) using your own definition that is not connected to the way we typically use that word, or (c) making things up to justify your initial meritless claims.
Notability is defined on various Wikipedias according to notability criteria. On enwiki, it's en:WP:N. Notability is about what's needed to have an article. We on Commons defer to the Wikipedias to decide what is notable and, when images here are used to illustrate such notable subjects, if it's best in scope they're sometimes nominated for VIC. That's what's happening here. The fact that I created one of the articles doesn't change that -- sometimes I take photos for the notable subjects I write articles about. If you don't think it's notable, this isn't the place to litigate it; nominate the article for deletion on Wikipedia. The fact is, when you left this messages, you dismissed these subjects as non-notable even though all of them are notable. And instead of just correcting yourself and moving on after my initial message, you've tried to double down with an insinuation that I wrote an article and therefore it couldn't be notable (because I am not competent? because you just don't like the subject?). But you are correct that one of the photos wasn't in use because the article is very short. That doesn't typically stop a VIC with such a straightforward scope as "interior", but it's swapped in now regardless. — Rhododendrites talk | 23:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-06-02 10:25 (UTC) |
Scope:
Triumph TR250, right rear view |
very dark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I agree, Thanks for the advice. Photo taken in a garage, IMO difficult to repare.--Pierre André ([[User talk:Pierre André Leclercq|talk]]) 22:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for your advice, I adjusted the exposure and brightened the shadows.--Pierre André (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2024-03-31 13:46 (UTC) |
Scope:
Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole (Paris) |
- Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: has much experience with Valued Image nominations. I am going to express my opinion but would encourage him to further comment if he wishes.
- Per COM:VIC, there are three Valued Image nomination cases - new nomination, renomination and MVR - Most Valued Review. MVR applies only when there is an existing image that already has a VI rating based on a defined generic scope (you will see a result statement indicating that it was reviewed and supported for VI as shown in the MVR for "Remote view of Florence Duomo by night".
- @Sebring12Hrs: - when I search Commons on the results of the first VI nomination found at "Commons:Valued image candidates/Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole, 24 Rue Chanoinesse, 75004 Paris, 1 May 2018.jpg", I find there was no review on this VI nomination - no support, no oppose; therefore undecided. Probably the personality rights statement based on the people present that made reviewers uncomfortable in expressing an opinion on VI.
- You have brought forth another image of the same building but without people. That should take care of the personality issue. IMHO, suggest you remove this MVR and enter this different image as a new VI nomination with the same scope and scope-link as previous. Please add a clear reason in the new VI nom describing what you are doing. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your review, I will remove this MVR and enter this in a new nominatio as you suggest. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|