Commons:Valued image candidates/Mülheim-Kärlich, Kirschblütenschule (2019-05-28 Sp).JPG

Mülheim-Kärlich, Kirschblütenschule (2019-05-28 Sp).JPG

**undecided**
Image
Nominated by	Spurzem (talk) on 2022-03-22 09:23 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Kirschblütenschule Mülheim-Kärlich, view from southeast
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Oppose This is an ordinary elementary school of which there are just two images in the linked category. If it must be a Valued Image, then one is enough and I vote for the other one. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] @GRDN711: Are you the one setting the rules here? Obviously you're looking for every poor argument you can use to justify your hatred towards me. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Question Hi, Spurzem. What makes this school or its building notable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Ikan Kekek: Next question please, perhaps a more intelligent one. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment I thought you would react by saying my question proved I hated you instead of insulting my intelligence. Why don't you answer the question? There is absolutely nothing unusual or illegitimate about the question, and I don't prejudge the answer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I sometimes respond to provocations with a joke like this, but sometimes with anger. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Why is a question a provocation to you? I'm not even opposing; I just want to know why this particular school merits a VI scope. Do you agree that not every school merits a VI scope? If you do, why does this one merit a scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Ikan Kekek: I saw that private houses were presented and the pictures were awarded, without anyone asking if these buildings were worth mentioning. The same applies to any parks, as well as to bird eggs, etc. Why should I have to explain or prove that this school, which is necessary for its town, is important? If it were not important it would not be built a few years ago. -- Spurzem (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your answer. My feeling is that in a small town, the only elementary school or high school would be important, but I wouldn't want us to consider every school building in a big city like New York a valuable image scope, unless it has a particularly important history or architecture. My feeling about private houses is that they might merit a scope if they're of historical interest and/or particularly interesting-looking. Bird eggs, when recognizably different in appearance from the eggs of other species, seem obviously of potential scientific/encyclopedic interest. Parks are a tricky issue, because even when they aren't just unimportant municipal parks, it's often hard to know which image would represent the entire park well and be recognizably different from pictures of other parks. In general, I think it's always worth considering and discussing where the limits of notability should be drawn. I'm happy to defer to you on this scope, but I definitely don't think every recently-constructed school should have a VI scope just because it was constructed and is important to the students who go there and the faculty and staff who work there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Ikan Kekek's reasoned arguments. And Spurzem should apologise for the insulting language he used. We do not need this vitriol on Commons. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Your arguments against me are getting weaker and more ridiculous. But no matter: Spurzem has to learn how worthless his pictures are. Right? -- Spurzem (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] From what I see, people are discussing scopes, not the worth of your pictures. You do such valuable work here, but you have such a thin skin and such a hair-trigger temper, and you see enemies under every bush. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Ikan Kekek: Is the project called "Valued Scopes" or "Valued Images"? And if my images are dismissed here with reference to constantly new and changing rules, that means they are worthless to people like you. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] (a) They are not dismissed; (b) arguing about the ideal scope does not mean your images or nominations are "worthless" to anyone. And none of us are responsible for the way you react to discussions, which is not common to many other users at all. That said, I'll add a (c), which is that if you'd like to discuss how important a good scope is or isn't for people doing research in this repository of images, let's please have that discussion on the talk page. I assume it's important, but I could easily be wrong and wouldn't prejudge that. However, I would note that if scopes are of no importance, this project must be fundamentally flawed and probably is pointless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] If other people don't discuss here and don't react angrily, it's because they can be lucky not to be bullied. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Who's the bully? Come on, you are really that oblivious to things going on outside of you? How do others react when their scopes are questioned here? Have you noticed other people lashing out the way you do? Rarely. I again suggest you start a thread about whether scopes have any use or should be totally up to the nominator. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think this photo is better than the other one. An English description would be nice though. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)`[reply]