Comment You climbed a summit and you made this exellent view of the lake and the summit opposite. But it is possible to climb on the Pizzo Stella and make the opposite image. It will be different and useful. But you will be bored to find a scope. It would be good to add to the scope of today the name of the summit in the background and you can do the same thing for the other image and both will be promoted. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for your review. I think the scope is not too broad according to Commons:Valued image scope#...and not too broad..... I think Lago di Lei deserves a scope and we should have a VI that shows the most valued illustration of Lago di Lei. I also have a picture of the lake from Pizzo Stella and from all the other peaks around the lake and they all do not depict the lake a quarter as good as this picture and therefore I will not upload and/or nominate them for VI - they don't deserve it. However, if you think this picture is not the most valued illustration of the lake, please feel free to oppose the nomination - because then the picture is (for me) not worth to be a VI. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an interesting example for the problem of scopes. In our rules we must describe the objects as completely as possible. A lake, a mountain, a car are very different depending on the point of view where it is. You tell us that it is the best point of view that is most appreciated. It's not objective and you do not completely describe the object. Find a way to reduce the scope to not break the rules, and allow a plurality of points of view. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry, but I agree with Archaeodontosaurus. This project has developed an inclusivity convention to encourage the upload of images of all significant views to fully define an object. That generally means adding the view direction for views such as this splendid one. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you both for your comments, I really appreciate it. If you think this picture is not the most valued illustration of the lake, please feel free to oppose - I will accept it and not be offended. On the contrary, I would be happy to see that not every nomination is just waved through following the rule "Tit for tat".
If the project has developed an inclusivity convention to encourage the upload of images of all significant views, and you support that, please change Commons:Valued image scope and don't just apply rules that you think would be good. I have pictures of around 130 mountains, for most of them from all four cardinal points, ready to be nominated as VI. Never fear, this is just an example not a threat - just to show that the project loose any reputation if just everything can be nominated and promoted. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IThere is an error of appreciation of scale. On one side a magma of more than 42 million images that grows faster and faster, on the other you tell us that you have 130x4 useful images. It is not a threat that you make us, it is a splendid deposit of potentially VI images. This is the heart of our project. We do not want to make an elitist picture club there FP for here, we want to be useful. Mark the paths that will allow users to find what they are looking for in the magma. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capricorn4049: your mountain images would, I am sure (based on the value of this image), be a valuable addition to Commons, and each one nominated as a VI would be welcomed and assessed per its specific scope. The world has a limitless supply of treasures and we have, as yet, only catalogued a minute proportion of them with VIs. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, @Archaeodontosaurus and DeFacto: One last attempt and then I will not anymore disturb your project: The project aims to highlight the most valued illustration in a scope and a scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example (not my words, but first sentences copied from Commons:Valued images and Commons:Valued image scope). If you don't understand the word generic, please google it (I had also to do so).
In practice that means: An author wants to write an article of Lago di Lei and is looking for the most valued image of the lake. He opens the Category:Lago di Lei and there is a total of 41 pictures. He wants the most valued image and knows that there is a project that awards the most valued image, so that he has not to look through all 41 pictures but only has to click in the top right on Good pictures and then on Valued images and voila, there is the most valued picture that illustrates the Lago di Lei in its whole the best. If he wants to visualize a detail, for example the fact that the rocks on the left side in the lake are steeper than on the right side, he will search for a picture that shows the valley without water directly, and not make a detour via VI (because this is not the purpose of the project and makes no sense).
Ok, scanning 42 pictures is not a big deal, but let's look for example at Category:Angela Merkel: Either you scan 3 028 Files or you take the one and only VI with the scope. There is no Angela Merkel from behind, no Angela Merkel in Trier, no Angela Merkel (left) meets János Áder in Budapest - just Angela Merkel. The project does here what it was created for. It helps the user to find the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Angela Merkel. Other examples? Sure: Polar bear → either you scan 3 614 pictures or you take the VI. Eiffel Tower → either you scan 7 713 pictures or you take one of the two VIs. Mount Kilimanjaro → two VI of 254 pictures.
Instead, Category:Pfarrkirche St. Ulrich in Gröden for example, has 40 (!!) VI images. Please don't tell me that this helps anyone except for the author. Nearly all nominators (me included) have a user box on their user page that counts the VI's. The higher the number, the better the user feels. Of course, it is easier to take and nominate 40 pictures of one object than to take 40 pictures of different objects. And it is easy to wave through all the nominations of the other authors in the hope that the other will also support the own nominations. But this is indeed not the purpose of the project, and this practice will damaged the reputation of the project irreversible. However, if you want to continue with this practice, you should really change the rules and not just use them as one pleases. --Capricorn4049 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject being discussed here is very tricky. Is some categories we have quite well established guidelines - so for cars we generally have two VIs (front and back) and two for butterflies (dorsal and underside). For a mountain it must surely depend on how significant it is. The Matterhorn could justify one from each cardinal and close ups of significant climbs and ridges, but some lesser mountains might only justify two or three. The bigger problem here at VI is large numbers of nominations on insignificant things - buildings and bits of buildings is one area I think is out of control: not everywhere has the importance of Venice. There are some plain silly nominations of course, like the recently-promoted garlic chicken balls. So I would add view direction to this nomination Charles (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
