Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Valued image candidates/Gateway-of-India.jpg/Archive of previous reviews

< Commons:Valued image candidates‎ | Gateway-of-India.jpg
  •  Oppose - First of all, you didn't do the "scope" right: The scope is Gateway of India, and you needed to link it to Category:Gateway to India (look at other Valued image nominees in edit mode to see how it's done). However, the main problem this picture has is it is nowhere near as good as the pictures you'll see when you search for "Quality images" in Category:Gateway to India. Either File:Mumbai 03-2016 30 Gateway of India.jpg or File:Gateway Of India.jpg would appear to be best in scope. There's also the subcategory, Category:Gateway of India illuminated. I'm not sure whether any file would be considered best in scope for that subcategory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Ikan Kekek: is it fine now or more improvements needed --Tiven2240 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're referring only to the scope, right? No, you've created a red link. And "Useful picture" is not part of any scope, but only for people judging the picture to decide for or against. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest for you to nominate this photo for VI in Gateway of India, illuminated (linked to Category:Gateway of India illuminated). I don't know whether it would be judged best in scope for that scope or not, but it has a chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: DONE hope u give a affirmative 😀 --Tiven2240 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I don't understand how having a cramped view of scopes helps users. If that means I'd like the criteria to be revised to explicitly allow a subcategory of night views of x, y or z to be promotable to VI if the night view is judged to be significant, such as in case of illumination, so be it - but I think "in general" should be taken at face value as a general case to which intelligent exceptions are a given. If you think the general case is the universal case, I'm wondering how much you'd follow through on this. Would you apply it to New York's Chrysler Building, which looks quite different when lit up at night and is rather famous for the night as well as the day view? What about the Empire State Building, which is not merely lit up in white light but most commonly lit in as many as 3 different colors or more? I'd remind you that there is a Category:Gateway of India illuminated with numerous examples. This is very clear circumstantial evidence for the night view of this gate being notable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info @Ikan Kekek: The purpose of a VI is to identify images that best illustrate Wikipedia (and other) articles. In this case, we are looking for the best image that illustrates the article en:Gateway of India (and similar articles). There is no article en:Gateway of India at night and there never will be, so there should not be a VI for such an image. Quality images on the other hand are not tied to articles in this way. Does this explain things? See here for more information. Martinvl (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm looking at the Valued images page. Here are things I see:
The valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online.
"High diversity and usability" conflicts with your notion that a night picture of a specially illuminated building or monument cannot or should not be a VI. Such a picture could easily be one useful illustration in an article about the monument or an article about illumination of monuments or structures, just to take two of the most obvious topics (it could also be used in most kinds of articles about the city or neighborhood it's in). The fact that "Gateway of India at night" couldn't itself be the topic of a Wikipedia article proves nothing at all about the potential value of using the best illustration on Commons of what this gate looks like when illuminated. And please don't limit your imagination, if that's something you're doing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Yann: I strongly object with your opposition to the image. The image you suggested (File:Gateway-SJ-003.jpg) is a little bit dull and doesn't attract the beauty of the gate.The image nominated has a bright view as well has a better colour contrast. According to me the tree gives a great scenic view to the gate. Explore the beauty in the image --Tiven2240 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know what you are talking about. Your image is of poor quality. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comes across as a little harsh. I'd agree that his image isn't of great quality, but I think it's of much better quality than the one you prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Gateway-of-India.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews&oldid=232559290"