Commons:Valued image candidates/Fresque des mytères, Pompéi.jpg

Fresque des mytères, Pompéi.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Yann (talk) on 2014-10-28 16:36 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Fresco of the mystery ritual, right, Pompeii
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment I think scope:Fresco of the mystery ritual is too broad and general. --Halavar (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment There is no real name for each part of the fresco, and the interpretation is controversial. I completed the description. OK now? Yann (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment Too complicated now... I think scope should be: "Fresco of the mystery ritual, Villa of the Mysteries, Pompeii, Italy." --Halavar (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment This is only a part of the fresco, which covers several walls. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment I think Frescos of the mystery ritual satisfies COM:VISC. The category Category:Frescos of the mystery ritual has been stable since 2010. Halavar, why do you think it too broad and general? Villa of the Mysteries works for me also. The frescos seem to be its main feature of note. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)  Comment Why? There might be hundreds of frescos of mystery rituals in the world. So we should specify, that we are talking about fresco of the mystery ritual in the Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii. As I said: Quate: "I think scope should be: "Fresco of the mystery ritual, Villa of the Mysteries, Pompeii, Italy." I don't know, why Yann does not want to change scope to my proposal... --Halavar (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)  Support Category:Frescos of the mystery ritual satisfies the criterion of COM:VISC, to wit, "If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope." It is disambiguated similar to the manner you suggest by its parent category Category:Ancient Roman frescos in the Villa of the Mysteries (Pompeii). I try to defer to the nominator if possible and be mindful of Jebulon's comments.[1] Consequently, I'm reverting to the original scope and supporting that version.Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)  Support (with "Pompei" added).[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)