Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Valued image candidates/(Toulouse) Homme au collier blanc (1873) Gabriel Durand, huile sur toile - Musée du vieux Toulouse Inv.T1940.jpg

< Commons:Valued image candidates

(Toulouse) Homme au collier blanc (1873) Gabriel Durand, huile sur toile - Musée du vieux Toulouse Inv.T1940.jpg

promoted
Image  
Nominated by Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-02-02 06:28 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Homme au collier blanc (Man with white beard) by Gabriel Durand
Used in Global usage
Review
(criteria)

If you look at this scope, you see that the scope is the artwork, which has its own category. This seems right to me. Have we changed the way we do scopes? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Charlesjsharp, can you link to the guideline you are describing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I was trying to make (that was incomprehensible!) was that the successful VI I reference above has a scope for the artwork. This seems normal. If there is no category, you can create one, like I do all the time for animals, though this is not mandatory according to the guidelines. This current nomination does not have its own category. So why the inconsistency? The guidelines state that "Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way". We are ignoring this guideline. We also ignore this guideline: "Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope." and this guideline: "a natural site should be of more than local interest to justify a scope". You can see my questions relating to a sign which I do not think is worthy of a scope. We risk devaluing the VI project. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you remember, when I tried to enforce some policies as written, I was overruled, but there's never been a consensus to put the de facto policies of this board into words. I should say, though, that having a repository of valued images of artworks and buildings that could be of any interest does not devalue anything; it's just a broader view of what can be valuable. I see the point of limiting "value" to those things that are most famous and celebrated, but I think a more nearly comprehensive repository should not presume what may be of most interest tomorrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment We are here to describe the world, not to judge it. I put a lot of paintings online that I don't like and I promote small obscure masters, who have been somewhat forgotten. Curiously over time I learned to like them. I haven't wasted my time, nor have those who now can see them. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment And I very much agree with that. My artist father loved Marquet's work, but for some reason, he has been out of vogue for some time. Should we concede to the critical opinion of the day? I don't think so. Similarly, my local classical radio station, WQXR, has been playing a lot of work by composers who have been forgotten about since their days, some of whom were women, Black people or members of other minorities (Jewish composers in Germany who never converted out, etc.), and most of it is quite good. The world is not populated only by the largest larger-than-life geniuses like Beethoven and Wagner, and repositories of knowledge need to go beyond whatever is considered "canon" or is currently in vogue. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment All fair enough if the rules are to be ignored. So every artwork, street, building, person can have a scope? This cannot be right. Incidentally, I have had every animal genus VIC rejected (where species is not known or cannot be confirmed by a photo), despite the rules saying "If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level." So I don't even bother now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment This rule is not applicable. If we go back to genus for scope, each species image can claim to supplant the previous one and we will have as many images, in Pending Most valued review candidates, as there are species for that genus... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/(Toulouse)_Homme_au_collier_blanc_(1873)_Gabriel_Durand,_huile_sur_toile_-_Musée_du_vieux_Toulouse_Inv.T1940.jpg&oldid=628297685"