Commons:Valued image candidates/(MHNT) Berberis aquifolium - Flowers.jpg

(MHNT) Berberis aquifolium - Flowers.jpg

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-04-02 04:51 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Berberis aquifolium (Oregon grape) - Flowers
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment Worth supporting. However, the scope should be linked to the CAT:Berberis aquifolium flowers. --Tagooty (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment The scope can refer either to a category or to a gallery. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] A Category is (much) more complete than a Gallery. Uploaded images are added to a CAT, very few are added to a Gallery. VI is "best in Commons" so should be compared with the bigger set. In the scope guidelines, Gallery is listed after Category. In this case there is a CAT with the exact name as the Scope. --Tagooty (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Please read the rules again; a category or a gallery are allowed. The problem with the categories is that they become plethoric and that few of us want to make the effort to structure it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment My reading of the rules is that the first one that matches is applied. However, I'll defer to your much greater experience. --Tagooty (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I agree with Togooty's earlier comment on this. Per COM:VIS, a VI nomination is that “the image is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope you have specified”. Further down in “Links in the scope”, the guidance is given in order and a category link is placed before a gallery link. This makes sense as the VI claim is to be the most valuable image for a given scope in all of Commons. In this case, the gallery was created by you (your usual excellent work), based on just 2 flower images that you included in the gallery. That seems a too restrictive given the COM:VIS statement of purpose for VI. The scope link here should be the full Category:Berberis aquifolium flowers of 159 images. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment I would like to mention that before voting I did go through all 159 images in the CAT and this is the best. Most of the images are inflorescences. So, linking the scope to the CAT will still result in this nom as VI. --Tagooty (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Tagooty: Thank you, you have experienced the difficulty of plethoric categories and the usefulness of galleries. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thank you, Tagooty, for your diligence. The issue here is about the VI process; the result may be the same. Comment Archaeodontosaurus, per COM:VIS, scope links to categories links are preferred over gallery links so that all Commons images of a generic field or category can be evaluated for the most valuable example. Have faith in the consensus system that yours, if so judged, will be regarded as most valuable in the full Category:Berberis aquifolium flowers. Please re-set your scope link to this full category. If you have a problem with the understandable confusion between inflorescences and flowers, suggest you re-categorize the inflorescence images if they are problematic. A scope link to a self-selected gallery of 2 flower images of which yours is one of them, is not a solid basis for a VI rating. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] I get what you mean, I hadn't thought of it that way. I will ensure that the reference to galleries remains an exception. Best in Scope Gallery OK. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)`[reply]