Question Rules may have changed recently that I do not know of, but what is the relevance of this church? Church scopes used to be only acceptable for renowned buildings or cathedrals, etc. Hans07:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this church be not relevant? In de.wikipedia (which has very tight relevant criteria) this church could get an own article - and will get soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per scopes for buildings: Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... Christian architecture is taken as an example, but the same general rule applies to religious buildings of any religion. Hans07:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This rule is neither comprehensible nor logical. Why are only churches restricted? Why are e.g. all flowers and arthropod relevant? --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the above mentioned rule I believe the religious buildings are used just as an example as being probably the most photographed subject. So this should be applied to all subjects for instance: Not any footballer is worth a Valued Image scope.... As if till now it was applied only to churches. In my view, the interpretation of this rule should be broaden (but still not any). I think that if the temple has some presentable architecture this is enough. In this connection I find the subject of the nominated photo OK for VI. So I Support too.--MrPanyGoff12:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
