Comment Dear Charlesjsharp, that chapel is much younger, of course. I suppose 2nd half of the 19th century. However, that younger chapel is listed as cultural heritage monument. The relief of the Crucifixion of Christ (= wayside shrine) of 1751 is additionally mentioned in that entry. To complete that ensemble, I've also mentioned that relief in the scope, as it can also be seen in the photo. The year 1751 refers to that wayside shrine, not to the chapel, which is undated. Kind regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Palauenc05's explanation would cause this to be a valid scope based on the discussions we're having on the talk page, and certainly now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question The link is made to a Wikipedia page; there is no link to an independent authority. The links are broken. As to why a State authority would list/protect a simple 20th Century 'chapel' I have no idea. Can you explain the status of these listings. It would be helpful for the VI criteria debate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State protection is based on a generic normative name. If we read the cards it is easy to see that the buildings are not protected in full but in pieces. Sometimes the roof, sometimes a tower or a window etc. Here it is the statue in the wall which is protected. This pattern is quite usual and no one had thought to dispute it. In fact the problem will be solved by the result of the vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the information. The 'stature in the wall' is therefore deserving of a scope, not the chapel. 10:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
