Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2008/10

Anthus godlewskii.jpg

View opposition Nominated by: oskila (talk) on 2008-09-16 19:41 (UTC) Scope: Blyth's Pipit (Anthus godlewskii)  Neutral It looks great at full size, but at taxobox size it's difficult to see the bird. A cropped version would be more useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Unfortunate background, it is difficult to see the bird. --Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)  Comment I have no problem seeing the bird at taxobox size, but that's probably because I do 20-30 hours of birdwatching per week.--oskila (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)  Support Have to say I disagree with the opposers. It's a fine picture. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Supporting cropped version. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose I agree it is a fine picture, but for online content and at VI review size, I find a cropped version better (such that the subject fills a larger fraction of the image area). I have therefore uploaded Image:Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg and moved this nomination to MVR to let it compete with Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii.jpg: -2 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: +3 Result: Image:Anthus godlewskii.jpg: Declined <-- Image:Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: Promoted -- Slaunger (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2008-09-22 22:24 (UTC) Scope: Blyth's Pipit (Anthus godlewskii) Used in: en:Blyth's Pipit, fi:Mongoliankirvinen, no:Mongolpiplerke, sv:Mongolpiplärka, pt:Petinha-de-blyth  Info Cropped version of Image:Anthus godlewskii.jpg, which I find better at illustrating the subject at review size. Added to MVR. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)  Support much better. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  Support Well done! I've swapped the image in the above wiki articles.--oskila (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) * Support The other image is more beautiful, but this one is more useful in wikipedias.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Voting is closed as the image has been promoted. I will let your comment stay here though, but I am striking the vote as it is confusing when the result deviates from the votes seen. Does not matter much in this case anyway as the result is the same. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii.jpg: -2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: +3 <-- Result: Image:Anthus godlewskii.jpg: Declined Image:Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: Promoted <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Town hall Rothenburg ob der Tauber

View opposition Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2008-09-20 09:51 (UTC) Scope: Town hall Rothenburg ob der Tauber Used in: de:Rothenburg ob der Tauber da:Rothenburg ob der Tauber en:Rothenburg ob der Tauber fr:Rothenburg ob der Tauber  Neutral this one has better focus but worse composition. The nominated picture has a strong shadow on the foreground (shadow not present on the other pic). --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose I find the other image better due to the less distracting lighting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  Weak support Close race. Since the shadow is not on the building (as it is usually hard to get good photos of buildings in the middle of a town due to shadow effects) I do not find it that distracting, and the lightning on the building itself is better than on the alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose support edit. Mr. Mario (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)  weak oppose - distortion :/ --Pudelek (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I think distortion is ok for a VI. --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I know, but bulding looks unnatural --Pudelek (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 3 oppose => declined. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2008-09-27 11:06 (UTC) Scope: Town hall Rothenburg ob der Tauber  Support Better than the other one. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)  Weak oppose Slightly prefer the other one. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)  Support Better light balance --B.navez (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone

View opposition Nominated by: Tobi 87 (talk) on 2008-09-20 20:20 (UTC) Scope: Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone  Comment Now, I nominated the correct photo and I did some categorization work. I didn't find a comparable image of the same object except this one. But in this case, the colours seem in my opinion unnatural. Let me know what you think about it! -- Tobi 87 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)  Comment this version of the pic you found has better colours. --Eusebius (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose I prefer the edit mentioned by Eusebius. I have there opened an MVR on the occasion and added Commons:Valued image candidates/Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall nn edit1.jpg. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand_Canyon_of_the_Yellowstone-Wyoming-USA.JPG: -1 <-- 2. Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall nn edit1.jpg: +4 => Image:Grand_Canyon_of_the_Yellowstone-Wyoming-USA.JPG: Declined. <-- Image:Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall nn edit1.jpg: Promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2008-09-24 21:33 (UTC) Scope: Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone  Info Alternative to Commons:Valued image candidates/Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone-Wyoming-USA.JPG. I prefer the wider view in this one for better illustrating the canyon. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)  Support I agree. --Eusebius (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Support --Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Support, I agree with Slaunger. --J.smith (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand_Canyon_of_the_Yellowstone-Wyoming-USA.JPG: -1 2. Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall nn edit1.jpg: +4 <-- => Image:Grand_Canyon_of_the_Yellowstone-Wyoming-USA.JPG: Declined. Image:Grand canyon of Yellowstone and Yellowstone fall nn edit1.jpg: Promoted. <-- -- Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Mikumi National Park

View opposition Nominated by: Muhammad on 2008-09-25 11:53 (UTC) Scope: Mikumi National Park Used in: w:Mikumi National Park, It wiki, de wiki  Comment Sorry, heading is not available with the geodata. Muhammad 11:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)  Question Why not? When I look at the map it seems like the road is actually about 800m south east of the location you have indicated? If that is correct it should be possible to provide a heading assuming you recall if you were looking North-West ot South-East. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC) It felt as if we were moving in circles. I was certainly lost and was unaware of the importance of the direction then. Muhammad 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Actually I prefer your edited version. I created a MVR in order to compare them. --Eusebius (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Question What is your view on the nominators statement saying that the colors on this original are more representative of the place, than the more colorful edit? Which is most valued: The most true representation or the prettiest ;-) ? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I don't know, so I'll just retract myself. --Eusebius (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Reluctant support Hm... had to think about this for while. In the edit you state that one of the characteristics of this national park is that is is more dry than many others. The only other image I could find on Commons from this shows an elephant walking on green grass, which gives quite an alternative view of the characteristics of this national park. However, I also acknowledge that there are always regional and seasonal variances, which means that both representations are relevant. In the image here we better see the landscape as well as the characteristic mountains in the area in the background. I would have been nice, if there had been animals visible on the image, as that is for me a quite important aspect of having a national park. I prefer this original as compared to the edit, because the creator himself states this is a more faithful representation of the scenery. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose for edit Mr. Mario (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)  Question Are you sure? Have you read the nominators view on this? It may be the prettiest, but does that imply that it is the most valued? -- Slaunger (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama.jpg: 0 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: +1 Result: Image:Mikumi panorama.jpg: Declined <-- Image:Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: Promoted -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-09-26 09:46 (UTC) Scope: Mikumi National Park  Comment Nominated so that it can be compared to the original picture in MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC) After much examination of the two picture, I believe the other one to be atrue representation of the colours. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Question In what manner do you, Mohammad, think this image illustrates the scope well? I see a dusty road, some trees and a landscape. Are there any characteristics in the images which are specific to the Mikumi National Park (as compared to other national parks)? I am not asking to be rude, I would just like to be enlightened such that I can provide a more qualified review. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Other National Parks have more green vegetation compared to this one. Also, at the midground, there are mountainous ranges, probably the Uluguru Mountains which surround the park together with the Udzungwa mountains which are a characteristic feature of the Mikumi National Park due to its geography. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Support This one is much better than the other one. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Oppose The creator of the image states above that the original is a more true representation of the colour at the scene. I think we should go for the most faithful representation, even if the colors are a more washed out. It seem like that is how it really looks. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)  Comment Since we have all agreed that one version of this image has value, what is left is to agree upon the one with most encyclopedic value. IMO as the author of the image, I support the original version as being the most accurate depiction. Muhammad 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)  Support - I prefer this one, as the washed-out colours of the original are probably the result of a slight overexposure. Anyway, the colours of this one were not directly manipulated, only the overall contrast was slightly adjusted. As for "the true representation of the colour at the scene", that is much less objective that it seems. Depends, among several other things, on the time of the day, the transparency of the atmosphere, the place of the sun relative to the camera and ... the eyes of the observer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama.jpg: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: +1 <-- Result: Image:Mikumi panorama.jpg: Declined Image:Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: Promoted <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Saxifraga rivularis (Alpine Brook Saxifrage)

View opposition Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2008-09-26 21:54 (UTC) Scope: Saxifraga rivularis (Alpine Brook Saxifrage)  Info From Greenland. Seen in Upernavik. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)  Neutral One of the close-ups would be better for taxobox size, but they show only the flower. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Maybe if I created a new cropped version of this one, it would be a suitable taxobox image too? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, maybe. Could you give it a try? --Eusebius (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Info Cropped version nominated here. Moving to MVR. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose I'd rather support the other one. --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Support edit. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores. Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: -2 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: +2 Result: Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: Declined <-- Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: Promoted -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2008-10-02 08:43 (UTC) Scope: Saxifraga rivularis (Alpine Brook Saxifrage)  Info Cropped and noise reduced version of Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg as alternative MVR candidate for the original VIC within the same scope. May be better for taxobox usage. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Support I think it's better. --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)  Support This one is better. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores. Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: -2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: +2 <-- Result: Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: Declined Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: Promoted <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Champ-de-Mars

View opposition Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2008-10-12 20:24 (UTC) Scope: Champ-de-Mars, Parks and open spaces in Paris Used in: Champ-de-Mars (Paris), Pole Marsowe (Paryż), Campo di Marte (Parigi), Campo de Marte (París)  Comment This one is far better. It is a Featured Picture of the english WP, very high quality, and better angle (the picture you've nominated is not aligned and fails to show the surroundings of the Champ de Mars). I will nominate it and set up a MVR, so I won't vote. Could you please make the scope "Champ-de-Mars"? --Eusebius (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)  Info The picture presents the Champ-de-Mars, while the photo does not represent the area. The theme is the Champ-de-Mars, and not around. This is a candidate for "Valued image". Quality is further significance. Albertus teolog (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I understand your point. The thing is that the VI must be the "most valued" within the scope, and I think there is more value in showing a bit more of the Champ and of its surroundings (I think your crop is a bit tight, actually). And better quality adds value, although you're true about the fact that high quality is not a requirement. But when we have several pictures, we must compare them and select the best one (well, the most valued). I've given my opinion, up to the reviewers now! --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: 0 <-- 2. Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: +3 => Image:Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: Declined <-- Image:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-12 21:25 (UTC) Scope: Champ-de-Mars Used in: Paris Champ-de-Mars en:Champ de Mars, Paris de:Champ de Mars zh:戰神廣場 (巴黎) tr:Champ de Mars tr:Eyfel Kulesi eo:Marsa Kampo (Parizo) he:שאן דה מארס ko:마르스 광장 (파리) fa:برج ایفل fa:پاریس  Info Featured picture on the english WP. --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)  Support - The best available -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)  Support Agree with above assessment. Lycaon (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)  Support A lot better. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: 0 2. Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: +3 <-- => Image:Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: Declined Image:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Pixel beams

View opposition Nominated by: Mr. Mario (talk) on 2008-10-16 23:35 (UTC) Scope: Pixel beam  Oppose Fails criteria 4 and 6. -- Lycaon (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Light pixel-beam.jpg: -1 <-- 2. Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: -1 => Image:Light pixel-beam.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Mr. Mario (talk) on 2008-10-16 23:36 (UTC) Scope: Pixel beam  Oppose Fails criteria 4 and 6. -- Lycaon (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Light pixel-beam.jpg: -1 2. Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: -1 <-- 3. Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: -1 => Image:Light pixel-beam.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Mr. Mario (talk) on 2008-10-16 23:37 (UTC) Scope: Pixel beam  Oppose Fails criteria 4 and 6. -- Lycaon (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Light pixel-beam.jpg: -1 2. Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: -1 <-- 3. Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: -1 => Image:Light pixel-beam.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Mr. Mario (talk) on 2008-10-16 23:38 (UTC) Scope: Pixel beam  Oppose Fails criteria 4 and 6. -- Lycaon (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Light pixel-beam.jpg: -1 2. Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: -1 3. Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: -1 <-- => Image:Light pixel-beam.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 3.jpg: Declined. Image:Light pixel-beam 4.jpg: Declined. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Temple of Hephaestus in Athens

View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 13:08 (UTC) Scope: Temple of Hephaestus in Athens Used in: en:Classical Athens fi:Antiikin Ateena  Info I've selected four pictures in the category and put them in MVR. I think it would be nice to have a VI for that beautiful classical doric temple. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I'll geotag this one in a few hours. --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Done Geotagged --Eusebius (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Neutral Good lightning, but distracting person and slightly obstructed view by branch. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hephaistos Temple.JPG: 0 <-- 2. Hephaisteion 2.jpg: 0 3. Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: +1 4. Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: -1 => Image:Hephaistos Temple.JPG: Declined. <-- Image:Hephaisteion 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: Promoted. Image:Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 13:08 (UTC) Scope: Temple of Hephaestus in Athens Used in: Αθήνα nl:Agora van Athene nl:Tempel van Hephaistos  Info I've selected four pictures in the category and put them in MVR. I think it would be nice to have a VI for that beautiful classical doric temple. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Neutral I like this one because the structure of the roof is seen so clearly. However, the view is partly obstructed by a tree, and the lightning seems a little harsh. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hephaistos Temple.JPG: 0 2. View of Hephaisteion of Athens in 2008 2.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: +1 4. Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: -1 => Image:Hephaistos Temple.JPG: Declined. Image:View of Hephaisteion of Athens in 2008 2.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: Promoted. Image:Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 13:08 (UTC) Scope: Temple of Hephaestus in Athens Used in: Temple of Hephaestus in Athens Αθήνα en:Greek temple de:Tempel des Hephaistos fr:Héphaïstéion pt:Bandeira da Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura pt:Templo de Hefesto fi:Hefaistos cs:Athény gl:Templo grego  Info I've selected four pictures in the category and put them in MVR. I think it would be nice to have a VI for that beautiful classical doric temple. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Support Best compromise between angle of view, lightning, and no distracting elements. Difficult decision. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Would be my choice as well (if only I could disregard the fact that I didn't take it :-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hephaistos Temple.JPG: 0 2. Hephaisteion 2.jpg: 0 3. Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: +1 <-- 4. Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: -1 => Image:Hephaistos Temple.JPG: Declined. Image:Hephaisteion 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: Promoted. <-- Image:Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 13:08 (UTC) Scope: Temple of Hephaestus in Athens Used in: pt:Atenas  Info I've selected four pictures in the category and put them in MVR. I think it would be nice to have a VI for that beautiful classical doric temple. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I'll geotag this one in a few hours. --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Done Geotagged --Eusebius (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose Unfortunate shadow in the foreground. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hephaistos Temple.JPG: 0 2. Hephaisteion 2.jpg: 0 3. Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: +1 4. Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: -1 <-- => Image:Hephaistos Temple.JPG: Declined. Image:Hephaisteion 2.jpg: Declined. Image:Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: Promoted. Image:Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: Declined. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Rio-Antirio bridge

[[File:|160px]] View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-07 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Rio-Antirio bridge  Info Selected images from the category for a MVR about this bridge, which is a link between Peloponnese and the northern part of Greece. The official name of the bridge is "Chiralaos Trikoupis bridge", but it is never used (should the scope be changed?). This ones shows the entire bridge but is overexposed on the left part. --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: 0 3. Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: 0 4. Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: +1 => Image:Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: Declined. Image:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	[[File:|160px]] View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-07 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Rio-Antirio bridge Used in: Rio-Antirio bridge fr:Patras  Info Selected images from the category for a MVR about this bridge, which is a link between Peloponnese and the northern part of Greece. The official name of the bridge is "Chiralaos Trikoupis bridge", but it is never used (should the scope be changed?). Quality image, but only three of the four pylons are shown. --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: 0 2. Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: 0 4. Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: +1 => Image:Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: Declined. <-- Image:Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: Declined. Image:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-07 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Rio-Antirio bridge Used in: en:Rio-Antirrio bridge de:Rio-Andirrio-Brücke fr:Pont Rion-Antirion it:Ponte Rion Antirion zh:里翁-安提里翁大桥 da:Rio-Antirio-broen he:גשר ריו-אנטיריו el:Γέφυρα Ρίου-Αντιρρίου cy:Pont Rio-Antirio  Info Selected images from the category for a MVR about this bridge, which is a link between Peloponnese and the northern part of Greece. The official name of the bridge is "Chiralaos Trikoupis bridge", but it is never used (should the scope be changed?). This one is a diagram of the bridge structure. --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: 0 2. Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: 0 3. Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: 0 <-- 4. Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: +1 => Image:Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: Declined. <-- Image:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	[[File:|160px]] View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-07 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Rio-Antirio bridge  Info Selected images from the category for a MVR about this bridge, which is a link between Peloponnese and the northern part of Greece. The official name of the bridge is "Chiralaos Trikoupis bridge", but it is never used (should the scope be changed?). --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)  Support - I prefer this one, though the quality of the image is not the best, because the whole bridge is shown in a (more or less) side view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: 0 2. Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: 0 3. Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: 0 4. Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: +1 <-- => Image:Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: Declined. Image:Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: Declined. Image:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Saint Anatolius of Milan

View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-09-29 21:16 (UTC) Scope: Saint Anatolius of Milan Used in: Milano fr:Anatole de Milan it:Sant'Anatalone  Comment The only representation I found of this saint, supposed to be the first or second bishop of Milan and celebrated on sept. 24th. Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)  Comment The picture has been cropped, but I don't really like it this way. I guess it doesn't affect its VI potential, but just tell me if you think one version is better than the other. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment - I also prefer the uncropped version -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I think it would be just unfair to revert the crop, and the editor has not uploaded a derivative version on a separate page... Would the crop influence your vote? --Eusebius (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Yes, it does, we should strive for the best picture. Maybe a MVR could be started with the original, under a new name. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  Done Both versions moved to MVR. This one has been reverted, since it is the original. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Question Are there any in- or off wikimedia links you can refer to for further reading? I was not able to find anything with a Google search except for your images, nor could I find a Saint with name on en, only one in Constantinoble, which is not quite the same... -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I could only find the French and the Italian article on the corresponding wikipediae (see the "used in" section). The Italian one references a book. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Support OK, that's fine. Seems to illustrate the scope well. I can't really make up my mind which version best illustrates the scope in review size, so I'll support both versions. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment Any more votes? Currently, both pics in the MVR could be closed as "undecided" although both are supported... --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: +2 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: +1 Result: Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: Promoted <-- Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: Declined -- Slaunger (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 08:03 (UTC) Scope: Saint Anatolius of Milan  Comment Cropped version uploaded and nominated separately, to be compared in MVR to the original one. --Eusebius (talk) 08:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  SupportVote changed. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Satisfies all criteria. Can't decide for the crop, so I'll support both versions. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Support Crop is better. Mr. Mario (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment Any more votes? Currently, both pics in the MVR could be closed as "undecided" although both are supported... --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)  Neutral On second thought I do not like such a tight crop as this one, and I prefer the other version with slightly more space around, even if that means the subject fills a slightly larger fraction at review size for this image. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for this somewhat bias-motivated vote :-P --Eusebius (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: +2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: +1 <-- Result: Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: Promoted Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: Declined <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Wind rose

View promotion Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2008-10-11 22:05 (UTC) Scope: wind rose Used in: Pedro Reinel, Compass rose  Info Replica of wind rose in Pedro Reinel's nautical chart of c. 1504. It is the first known wind-rose to clearly represent the fleur-de-lys. The practise was adopted in other nautical charts and survived till today  Support Better representation. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Reinel compass rose.svg: +1 <-- 2. WInd Rose Aguiar.png: -1 => Image:Reinel compass rose.svg: Promoted. <-- Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2008-10-11 22:02 (UTC) Scope: wind rose Used in: en:Compass rose  Info - Replica of a wind rose from a chart of Jorge de Aguiar (1492), the oldest known Portuguese signed and dated nautical chart.  Oppose Like SVG over PNG. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Reinel compass rose.svg: +1 2. WInd Rose Aguiar.png: -1 <-- => Image:Reinel compass rose.svg: Promoted. Image:WInd Rose Aguiar.png: Declined. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Punnett Squares

View promotion Nominated by: Pbroks13 (talk) on 2008-10-18 01:15 (UTC) Scope: Punnett square Used in: Punnett square  Support Nice. --Foroa (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)  OpposeVote changed due to improved categorization. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Should be categorized to at least one category relating to the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment Added the image to the category Category:Punnett squares. Pbroks13 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)  CommentYou took my idea! --Mr. Mario (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)  Support A good and clear illustration of the scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) {{oppose}} missing geocodeing  Support Great job. :)... J.smith (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Punnett Square.svg: +3 <-- 2. Punnett square 2.svg: -1 => Image:Punnett Square.svg: Promoted. <-- Image:Punnett square 2.svg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Mr. Mario (talk) on 2008-10-20 01:06 (UTC) Scope: Punnett Square  Info The red is dominant and green is recessive. Mr. Mario (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) Help needed: Can anybody fix the letters please? Mr. Mario (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)  Done --Eusebius (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose for now. Even with adequate text I don't see this as a serious competitor. I am willing to have a look again later though. It is pretty hard to help out, when you do not present any details on what kind of text you want where. Try Inkscape, if you do not use or know of this program already. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I did use Inkscape. --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Punnett Square.svg: +3 2. Punnett square 2.svg: -1 <-- => Image:Punnett Square.svg: Promoted. Image:Punnett square 2.svg: Declined. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Canyonlands National Park

View Nominated by: Tobi 87 (talk) on 2008-10-05 12:52 (UTC) Scope: Canyonlands National Park  Comment I would make the scope simply "Canyonlands National Park". There is close competition with this picture, which has a lower resolution but less haze in the distance. --Eusebius (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  Info Moved to MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Weak oppose I actually think the lightning is superior on this one, but the line of sight is less optimal than on the competing candidate, and for that i prefer the alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  SupportAll six criteria. Mr. Mario (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Yes but the other one meets them too, the question here is "which one do you prefer for a VI ?" --Eusebius (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)  Weak support Better framing (the plain is not interesting).--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Canyonlands NP-Utah-USA.jpg: +1 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/View from Green River Overlook in Canyonlands NP.jpg: +1 Result: Image:Canyonlands NP-Utah-USA.jpg: Undecided <-- Image:View from Green River Overlook in Canyonlands NP.jpg: Undecided -- Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-10-06 10:23 (UTC) Scope: Canyonlands National Park  Comment Nomination created for MVR. This picture has lower resolution but less haze than the first nominee. --Eusebius (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)  Weak support Not quite as good lightning as the original nomination, but line of sight is much better. Thus, I prefer this one. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Canyonlands NP-Utah-USA.jpg: +1 Commons:Valued image candidates/View from Green River Overlook in Canyonlands NP.jpg: +1 <-- Result: Image:Canyonlands NP-Utah-USA.jpg: Undecided Image:View from Green River Overlook in Canyonlands NP.jpg: Undecided <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Muslim Scholar on a Mimbar

View promotion Nominated by: Muhammad on 2008-10-09 12:13 (UTC) Scope: Muslim Scholar on a Mimbar  Info This is an edit of Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg, the current VI within the same scope. This MVR is setup to evaluate if the edit can be considered to be a more valuable illustration of the scope than the original. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment I see less details on this one in the dark parts, but it may be due to my screen settings, so I won't vote. --Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)  Weak support I slightly prefer this edit as compared to the original VI for illustrating the scope at review size. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar edit1.jpg: +1 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg: -1 Result: Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar edit1.jpg: Promoted <-- Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg:Declined and demoted to former VI within this scope -- Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Muhammad on 2008-09-25 12:14 (UTC) Scope: Muslim scholar on a minbar. Used in: Ammar Nakshawani Hussainia Minbar Ramadan Previous reviews  Info This image is currently VI within the scope. However, an edit Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar edit1.jpg has been uploaded and nominated for VI within the same scope. Thus, an MVR has been opened to settle if the edit is considered more valuable than the current VI (if yes, this image will be demoted). -- Slaunger (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)  Weak oppose I think the edit is slightly better than than this original for illustrating the scope at review size. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar edit1.jpg: +1 Commons:Valued image candidates/Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg: -1 <-- Result: Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar edit1.jpg: Promoted Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg:Declined and demoted to former VI within this scope <-- -- Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Christmas decorations

View opposition Nominated by: Twdragon (talk) on 2008-10-22 17:29 (UTC) Scope: Christmas decoration Used in: Ёлочные украшения  InfoNot geotagged because subject is not strictly localized. --Twdragon (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)  Info If you want to nominate several images for the same scope, either you put them in competition and set up a MVR (in that case, at most one of them can be promoted), or you nominate them as a valued image set (about set nomination, about set criteria). I suggest you read the links I've pointed out (and the other rules of the project) in order to make your decision (or, you can choose only one of your pics and nominate it the simple way). --Eusebius (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I've set up a MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment Вы дали слишком широким по своему охвату. Эти стеклянные шарики. На фото это не хорошо. Это например больше энциклопедических. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 4 (is not fully described on the image page). I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: -1 <-- 2. Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: -1 3. Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: -1 => Image:Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: Declined. <-- Image:Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: Declined. Image:Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Twdragon (talk) on 2008-10-22 17:32 (UTC) Scope: Christmas decoration Used in: Ёлочные украшения  Info Not geotagged because subject is not strictly localized --Twdragon (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)  Comment Россия эти великая страна, но эти украшения характерны только для нашей (славянской) культуры. Лучше ввести координаты. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 4 (is not fully described on the image page). I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: -1 2. Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: -1 <-- 3. Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: -1 => Image:Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: Declined. Image:Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: Declined. <-- Image:Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Twdragon (talk) on 2008-10-22 17:34 (UTC) Scope: Christmas decoration Used in: Ёлочные украшения  Info Not geotagged because subject is not strictly localized --Twdragon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 4 (is not fully described on the image page). I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: -1 2. Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: -1 3. Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: -1 <-- => Image:Елочное украшение "Аэростат" 1950е.JPG: Declined. Image:Елочное украшение кустарной работы.JPG: Declined. Image:Елочное украшение "Космонавт" 1960е.JPG: Declined. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)