Oppose The added value of showing a front and rear view of this car model is not significantly larger than the accumulated value of each image seen seperately. For these types of nominations the documentations of the different features of the subject needs to be more elaborate, see Valued image set: A Hardanger fiddle for a recent example. Although I have only assessed this as a set candidate you may consider nominating the front view as a stand-alone VIC of the car model if you find it is the best illustration there is (have not looked myself). The association between the front and rear view images is in my opinion best addressed by using the other versions field in the {{Information}} template (as you have done already). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Three more images would make this set more valuable, in my opinion: front, side and back with no diagonal. Even without the other three, the two images are better than just one. This one is almost a no-brainer.... -- carol (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I follow Slaunger on this one. Added value for a set should be more than what can be shown with two overview images. Especially for an elaborate 3D object like a car. Lycaon (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are apparently no other photos on Commons of this car model than these, so the answer is pretty obvious: These! However, that does not make it a VIS in my opinion, as there is the set criterium: ...that the set, when taken as a whole, is significantly more valuable than a collection of individual images.... It is more valuable as a set, but not significantly more valuable in my opinion. But this is all very subjective how you interprete that word. It is no exact science, which is probably why you find the outcome is different in your interpretation of the criteria. An opinion, which I respect as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you are certain that value of the two together is not greater than the separate individual images? Three images could supercede them, if I remember the VI rules correctly. -- carol (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most specific phrase we have in our guidelines about the value of a VIS as compared to the value of each individual image is the exact phrase, which I have quoted above, which is originates from Commons:Valued image criteria. And you are certainly right that if there had been three or more images, thus making the set more complete, I would probably too have supported it, assuming the additional images revealed important details and features not seen in the front and back view images. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionLook here[1], this 48er Fleetline has another back. Is it therefore good or bad to nominate my pictures as a set? I think in a set this single car is better documented. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I agree that the particular car you have photographed is valuable for Commons including your photo of its back, and I also agree it is more valuable as a set than the individual images. However, for me the set does not make the cut for me as being significantly more valuable than the added value of the individual images. So, you have made a valuable addition, well represented by the current contents of Category:Chevrolet 1948. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
