Info It is only one picture of that peak on commons and I dont think there will be another in near future (due to remotness of that area). So in my opinion it is better to have more general scope what could be narrow in future (in the case that there will be another pics of that mountain) --Grtek (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can see an object or a landscape of several places. The images which were very different. We must give a chance to all the useful images. Many of us accept this recommendation as you can see. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page." "Your chosen scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository." Potencial changed scope "Soviet Sonstitution Peak, East Face" wouldn't be akin to a commons category, that hypothetical category is not conceivable when there is only one picture of that peak on commons and we can't simply expect a lot of more in future.
And also, after hundreds of years, when every object on the Earth would be photographed on commons from all possible sides, so there would be demand for more scopes about this peak, this contemporary scope "Soviet Constitution Peak" still wouldnt exclude any other (sub)scopes.
So I still disagree with you and not going to change scope in nomination. Other story if this would be photo of one of most prominent peaks in the world - like Eiger, Matterhorn, Everest, Alpamayo... In that case it definitelly would be necesarrily to "give a chance to all the useful images" and narrow the scope by orientation / year / type of media / etc--Grtek (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with Archaeodontosaurus. There is an established VI convention for immovable objects, like buildings and landscapes, that the scope contains the view direction if it is possible to have an equally valued image taken from another direction. DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, third opinion and it seems that I am wrong... but, please, could you propose changes to Commons:VISC? Because there isn't any word about that convention...--Grtek (talk) 21:16, 11 August 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".
