Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring
Oppose While image has VI potential, per COM:VIS, the scope is too descriptive and wordy (scope too narrow) to define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Would you consider a scope that is less wordy, yet wider and simpler – “Brabham BT26A race car of Piers Courage (1969)"? --GRDN711 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that, for personal reasons, GRDN711 rejects pictures I have presented that are rare and photographically not objectionable. I don't know where the reasons are. That will probably remain his secret. I find such behavior not only uncollegial, but extremely shabby. -- Spurzem (
talk) 09:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear GRDN711, I doubt that you have personal dislikes for Spurzem or other colleagues here. But I wish we could concentrate on the basic idea of this project again, that is the promotion of valuable images, rather than chasing descriptive elements in scopes. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Palauenc05: @Spurzem: I consider all photographers to be people with good hearts so let’s focus on the key issue here is the same problem with scopes found in several of Spurzem's ten or so VI nominations.
Scopes should be written in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
The scope for this VI nomination “Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring” is a layered description of the image rather than the more concise generic field or category required by the COM:VIS as a scope definition.
The scope issue here is fixable. I have made my case and offered a suggestion for a revised scope that should meet VI requirements. That’s all I can do. --GRDN711 (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with GRDN711 and suggest that Spurzem removes his accusation that GRDN711's actions are "extremely shabby". No one is saying your old photos are not valuable; the suggestion is to alter the VI scope. Palauenc05; please read the scope guidelines again. The way that this scope is formulated means that its only competition in VI could be another photo of the Brabham BT26A of Piers Courage in practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring. This is clearly far too restrictive. VI is not designed as you suggest for "the promotion of valuable images" It is to choose the most valuable image within a generic scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Are valuable and rare photos rated here or any descriptions to the taste of any self-proclaimed experts? And do you know a better photo of Brabham BT26A with Piers Courage from 1969 in the Commons? The problem seems to be that this photo comes from Spurzem. -- Spurzem (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Believe it or not, I know the guidelines quite well. The question is if we should waste our time by chasing any descriptive element in a scope. Some people define a scope more explicitly, others (me f.ex.) prefer a very short scope. Anyway, this nitpicking, recently started by GRDN711, is getting on my nerves. That's why I won't contibute to this discussion anymore. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strange as it may seem, the VI project is all about nitpicking! Without attention to detail, the project becomes meaningless. For my animals VIs, the constructive nitpicking of Archaeodontosaurus has improved my VI submissions. I nitpick too all the time on his nominations. Spurzem does not seem to wish to engage with constructive criticism, preferring to consider every objection as a personal attack. That is unfortunate. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot physically follow all the discussions. But here's a consideration for VI: The more specific a scope is, the less contention there is. This is the case here. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: @Spurzem: We are in agreement, Archaeodontosaurus, that a less wordy, more specific scope is generally better, and COM:VIS supports this as well. The location information is not needed for this VI nomination and can be placed in the image description.
If Spurzem would consider changing the scope to a more specific “Brabham BT26A race car of Piers Courage (1969)” in keeping with COM:VIS, I will support it. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
