Commons:Valued image candidates/Hansa 1100 Coupé (2005-08-27).JPG

Hansa 1100 Coupé (2005-08-27).JPG

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-06-01 10:43 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Hansa 1100 Coupé
Used in	Global usage de: Goliath GP 1100, en: Goliath 1100
Review (criteria)	Comment Maybe it's just my opinion, but an "in motion" scope doesn't really work because it's hard to tell in a photo. --BoothSift 17:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Boothsift: Hard to tell or not to see? Look closely. Or do you think that's what a parked car looks like? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Spurzem: In this case, it was only because of the road that you would be able to tell. Anyway I still don't think we need an "in motion" scope, try something else. --BoothSift 01:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Boothsift: Whether you think we did not need a picture of a Hansa 1100 Coupé in motion, should be insignificant. Apparently, your criticism is something like a "return coach" as we say in German. Or did I get this wrong? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Spurzem: I am not German so therefore I have no clue if you got this wrong. Your criticism isn't that much better (a black car is too dark, for example)--BoothSift 02:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Boothsift: What is that supposed to mean? Did I ever write that a black car is too dark? May be that an image is too dark so that you can not see any details of a black car. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I don't think in motion should be in this scope. Let the image stand on its own. If it was racing or cornering sharply or something that would be different. 11:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: Several years ago, I was instructed to formulate the scope as precisely as possible in order not to block the rating of other images. Here's a Hansa 1100 Coupe on the move, another photographer might present a parked car of this type. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment In my view, adding "in motion" makes the scope too narrow. Please revisit Commons:Valued image scope wjhere you will see that teh primary object of valued images is to provide material for Wikipeia articles. Would anybody really want to include a picture of the model of car travelling across a road intersection? Only as an alternative to an image of the stationery vehicle, but not in addition to the stationery vehicle. Martinvl (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Martinvl: I do not understand for a long time, according to which criteria is rated here sometimes. Why should the proposed photo only be used to someone who absolutely wants to see a moving car? The picture is useful for anyone who wants to see the Hansa 1100 Coupe. But if you absolutely need a reason to declare the image unusable, then the most absurd justification is probably right. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Spurzem: Isn't it funny that three people have been telling you the same thing and you argue against every single one of them. Then Ikan Kekek comes with an offer to support and voila! You change the scope right away. Clearly, the support matters more to you than the criticism. --BoothSift 01:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Lothar, I've looked at the 4 Commons photos of this model of car, and I consider this one straightforwardly the best and clearly most useful. Sure, it's often good to be more specific in a scope, but there's an art to a scope, so I don't think there's any inflexible rule about how specific to make one, and we have to judge this logically on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, I would agree with the others that the relevant scope is really the model of the car, not whether it's parked or in motion. If you reduce the scope to just the model of car, I will support the nomination without hesitation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Done – Thank you, Ikan Kekek, but I keep wondering how the scope rules change from case to case. It is also astonishing to see who changes the rules and decides what is right or wrong. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Support - Best in scope. Meanwhile, perhaps we should have a discussion about scopes at Commons talk:Valued image scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Lothar Spurzem: The scope rules do not keep changing - the page Commons:Valued image scope has hardly changed in nine years. Also, the page Commons:Valued image criteria has hardly changed in ten years (apart form a small addition that I made about four years ago). What happens is that various people have differnet views on how to interpret that page. (Note that these pages are also available in French and in German and that the second of the pages is available in a number of other languages as well). @Martinvl: Yes, that's the problem that various people have different views of the rules and that these people believe they have to enforce their opinion. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Spurzem: You aren't also enforcing your opinion? The discussion above makes me think otherwise --BoothSift 01:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)`[reply]