User talk:Scotch Mist/VI Archive01

Userboxes

Scotch Mist Valued Images
This user has uploaded 12 valued images to Wikimedia Commons.

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Angelic Bridge in Brody and Kalwaria Zebrzydowska – Statue of Archangel Michael.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image. Here is a scope proposal that might be appropriate: {{c|Angelic Bridge in Brody and Kalwaria Zebrzydowska}} – Statue of Archangel Michael --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your advice - as may be obvious this is the first time I have proposed a 'Valued Image' and I trust I have now edited the scope of my nomination appropriately --SM1 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment As there had been no vote the scope change banner is not useful.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 20:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Angelic Bridge in Brody and Kalwaria Zebrzydowska – Statue of Archangel Raphael.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Small scope syntax problem, look at the difference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for pointing this out - hope to get it right next time! --SM1 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Entrance to Baranów Sandomierski Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Perspective correction crushed the image, it is important to correct.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 Done Have adjusted perspective to match relevant dimensions apparent from other images. --SM1 (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Courtyard of the Baranów Sandomierski Castle – Staircase in Courtyard of Baranów Sandomierski Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support imho best in scope --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bobolice Castle - Forest View.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Market Square in Bochnia – View of Casimir III Monument & Basilica of St Nicholas.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. File:Widok układu urbanistycznego Bochni z wieży kościoła farnego.jpg is most valuable as an overall view of the square, if anyone wants to nominate it in that scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Paweł Stalmach - Statue in Cieszyn.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Gdów – ks Ludwik Kusionowicz Portrait.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it would be useful that this image is used. . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose: The scope is inappropriate for this image - it should be connected to "Ludwik Kusionowicz", not to the church. I looked "Ludwik Kusionowicz" up in the English Wikipedia, in the Polish Wikipedia and on Google but all that I could find any articles about him him and not even enough information about him to meet the "notability" criteria on the English Wikipedia (which probably applies to the Polish Wikipedia as well). Martinvl (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 Comment The description associated with this file conveys the importance of Ludwik to the Church in Gdów of which he was not only Parish Priest for 46 years, while also becoming Dean of Wieliczka and honourary Canon of Tarnów, but he transformed the church building itself to its current form and is further honoured at the church with his statue. More importantly from an historical perspective is that Ludwik chronicled the Battle of Gdów (chronicle comprises ten pages of the book 'Kronika Gdowa' written in Polish by Piotr Gumulka and published in 2015), the only battle of the Krakow Uprising of 1846. The fact that Wikipedia pages have still to catch up with much of the history of Central Europe, much of it deliberately suppressed or destroyed in the past, should not, IMHO, be the sole criterion of whether an image is useful or not. --SM1 (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a judge of what is important and what isd not importsant in the Polish Wikipedia - that is up to the Polish Wikipedians. Once they have deemed Ludwik to be notable and have written an article, this image could be a suitable VI candidate, not as an adjunct to the church, but to Ludwik in his own right. Martinvl (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support Martinvl as usual finds some strange problems, and does not bother him that the photos in the end always get VI. I admire his perseverance. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)  Support agreed with Jacek Halicki & Archaeodontosaurus--Tiven2240 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment No problem with notability, the man can deserve a scope. But I think that yes, the chosen scope is not appropriate, and the image should be linked to something else than a church, as it is not a church. Not very good technically due to the distorsion: it should be a circle. So does it really describe the subject well enough (criterium 3) ? I don't oppose, but...--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The English Wikipedia has an essay on notability within the Roman Catholic church. Accoring to that article, Ludwik might come close to, but does not meet the criteria for notability (he was never a full bishop). The full article on en:Wikipedia:Notability describes the concepts further. If however somebody were to write a properly cross-referenced article (not just a stub) about Ludwik that was accepted as being worthy of inclusion in either the English or Polish Wikipedia, then he could be considered "notable" - until then however he is just another parish priest. Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Andrzej Cinciała – Cieszyn Plaque.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Andrzej Kusionowicz Grodyński – Portrait Photograph circa 1891.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Maybe the date of the shooting should be added to the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
   Done Have extended 'scope' to approximate year but do not have any evidence of exact date! --SM1 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Eleonora Fihauser, née Lanckorońska Portrait Painting.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Gdów Cemetery Chapel Altar - with Virgin Mary.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

scope needs some work; church? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank for your review - have changed the scope and added a 'reason' denoting the particular value of this unique altar painting of Mary SM:!) (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest you formulate scope as Gdów Cemetery Chapel Altar with Virgin Mary. The category where the image lies is not important for the scope itself. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: Thanks again - have changed scope in line with what I think you have in mind. --SM:!) (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Useful now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)