Comment - Is there a way to more clearly differentiate the scopes of the different photos? The other one was promoted in the scope "Papio anubis (Olive baboon) carrying young on its back", which is the same scope as this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No idea. I would like to change the existing one from young to baby, but don't know how to do that. Charles (talk)
Comment - Yes, this is clearly a better photo, but why can't we distinguish the scopes, given that in this case, it's a juvenile on its mother's back, whereas in the other one, it's a baby? I think both photos are clearly useful and distinct in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My reading of that leads me to the opposite conclusion. Substitute "baby" and "juvenile" in this sentence: "If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a "male" scope and a "female" scope can be proposed for the same species." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does anyone else have an opinion, or will this just remain unchanged? There's agreement that this is the better of the two photos, but there's disagreement about whether to have a distinct scope for an infant vs. a juvenile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The MVR rules accepts an MVR for two or more images that have "essentially the same scope", not "exactly ...". This tells me that the appropriate scope for the image which becomes a VI, should be the scope attached to it when it was nominated - in this case, the wording wth the word "juvenile". Martinvl (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, but I can't agree with you that scopes should be set in stone. That actually strikes me as inflexible for the sake of inflexibility. Suppose someone successfully nominated a photo for best of scope in Category:Chicken, and then another person decided to nominate a rooster and a chick? Should they be stuck not being able to have successful nominees because the original nominee, which was a hen, won in the broader scope of chicken? Why not, in that case, move the first VI to Category:Hen? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ikan Kekek: Per your comment here I nominate this one for MVI. Thanks!
Support - Most valuable, in my opinion. As mentioned vis-a-vis the other photo, more of her face is in sunlight in this one and she has a nicer expression. Should the status be "discussed"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Used in:
Absolute nowhere. I will await the VI verdict on this MVR before I start using it anywhere :-)
Reason:
I believe this image is superior to the existing VI as it is taken at a futher distance showing a larger entirety of the facade and with much less geometry distortions. Moreover, this is a high resolution 50 Mpixel panorama taken in excellent light. -- Slaunger (talk)
Comment@Slaunger, Ikan Kekek, Jacek Halicki, and Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry, I can't follow the reviews. The image is already VI. Is there a better one? Why is this image nominated again? And I'm not the nominator in 2017. Which argument by Slaunger? Sorry, there is something really wrong. I do not understand this nomination. --XRaytalk07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. The/this page is on my watch list. So I've seen just this one. BTW: Your image is the better one for VI. --XRaytalk08:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This photo was taken at the 1990 Emmy Awards pre-ceremony carpet. One of historical images. -- George Ho (talk)
Oppose - A sharper picture than the other one, but needs to be digitally restored: The white spots are very distracting and disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good alternative, but there are some very bright areas in this photo and she's in shadow. Those really bright flowers can be a distraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The perspective issues affect the VIC guideline #3: Must illustrate its subject well. The subject isn't well ilustrated. Thanks for your opinion Charles Ezarateesteban15:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: This is a huge monument, so I think eliminating the effects of perspective completely would look a bit artificial. I've reduced the perspective tilt some, per your suggestion, however. Hopefully it's an improvement. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Back when I nominated another photo, I didn't consider this photo. However, I think this photo may have more value as it's more widely used. Also, it indicates that time passes by. -- George Ho (talk)
Oppose - I may be too influenced by the quality of the other photo at full size, but his skin seems a bit bleached in this photo, by comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Taken at 2013 Comic Con. Nice smile and pose. -- George Ho (talk)
Question - Why are none of these pictures in Category:Neil Patrick Harris, and how are we supposed to figure out which picture is best in scope if we have to wade through a bunch of "Neil Patrick Harris by year" subcategories? It seems like this category has somehow gotten messed up, but I don't know how. It should be unmessed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, now I feel like there are so many photos, I can't look through all of them and decide which is best in scope. Should I restrict myself to judging just these three photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... shall I split three nominations into individually scoped nominations then? I'll split the scope into three yearly scopes. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Ikan. 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend not to think so. I don't think he will be recognizably different in consecutive years. Someone will probably take the time to look through all of the photos and determine to their satisfaction which is most useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed other pictures, but they do not come close to the three. There are other Comic Con 2013 photos of this guy, but I would rather pick something less silly and more... how do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I actually looked through all the photos in this more limited category. It's pretty nearly a tossup between this photo and File:Neil Patrick Harris (9448294366).jpg. The positives pretty nearly cancel themselves out. The bit of a finger in this one could disconcert someone, perhaps, whereas in the other, his head is leaning to the side. I'll say what the hell and Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we want VIs of people at every location they've ever attended unless it was significant, in which case it should be in scope i.e. getting an Oscar; collecting an honour/medal; getting married etc. (was this?). See current MVR below. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a slight misunderstanding about the purpose of MVR. We must choose, for the same scope, the best image, within the framework of an image that has already been labeled. Here it is. But you have proposed a 3rd image that has no link with the scope. That's what surprised me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't understand, because the file is in the linked category, Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Altscheid, and the words "Altscheid Wegekreuz" are in its filename. What do you mean by it having no link with the scope? Is it the same wayside cross or not? I guess not, but in that case, since it's also a wayside cross and apparently in Altscheid, there is either a problem with the clarity of the scope or File:Altscheid Wegekreuz 1694.jpg is in the wrong category. I suppose there are actually at least two wayside crosses in Altscheid? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the descriptions carefully and follow the links, you may find out that there are four wayside crosses in Altscheid. All of them are officially listed as historical monuments and thus each of them deserves a scope, although they are in the same category. --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do we know the years of construction of all 4 wayside crosses in Altscheid? If so, that should be the distinguishing factor in the scope. But I think the point should be clarified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think, does the bracket (1801) in the above scope mean? As I said before, read the links and you can answer your question yourself about the other three. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
_with_juvenile.jpg)
,_Centraal_Station_--_2015_--_7269.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_with_juvenile.jpg){kind=link}
,_Centraal_Station_--_2015_--_7269.jpg){kind=link}
,_Centraal_Station_--_2015_--_7269.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
