Comment - I'd like to support, but I'm not sure how to search for all the other pictures in this scope, if in fact there are any others on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you. Let's have a discussion. I think File:Gandhi Johannesburg 1900.jpg is a clearer picture of Gandhi, and it was taken during the Second Anglo-Boer War, but it's in his role as Barrister. However, I think this detail - File:Gandhi Boer war.jpg - makes it a lot easier to see Gandhi. I think the photo that you are nominating should be a VI, but perhaps the scope should be changed to "Gandhi with the stretcher-bearers of the Indian Ambulance Corps during the Second Anglo-Boer War". I would certainly support this photo if nominated in that scope, but I hesitate to support it in the current scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
@Ikan Kekek: my original "oppose" was because the image file was not well categorised, so did not satisfy VI criterion #6. Martinvl then created Category:Second Boer War Medical Services (although it is not clear why he named it that rather than "Indian Ambulance Corps") and added the image to that category. However, as Archaeodontosaurus has now pointed out, the link in the candidate scope text should now also be changed to link to the better category as per the normal, expected and mostly followed VI convention (and described in Commons:Valued image scope#Links in the scope - bullet point 2). In addition to those basic expectations, appropriate Wikipedia articles can be linked-to within the image file description - which will also make the image more useful. I hope that all helps you follow my reasoning and is clear. DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
OK, I will again Support, although I'm not sure why we're using this more general scope. However, as there is no other picture currently in that scope, from what I saw...And thanks for talking me through all that, DeFacto. I may quiz you on that at a future date. :-) -- 13:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info, thanks Martinvl, the category linked in the scope is good for me now and the new links in the image file description further add value, so I've struck my oppose. @Ikan Kekek: the scope hasn't changed that is what is described by the text - what has changed is that the scope now links to a related Commons category, which is preferred to a Wikipedia article. And please feel free to quiz me any time. . DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
