Commons:Valued image candidates/Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jerusalem Dome of the rock BW 14.JPG

undecided
Image
Nominated by Berthold Werner (talk) on 2010-04-27 09:19 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
View of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives
Used in

Global usage

used on 165 pages in 95 wikis (without commons), TinEye finds 21 copies in the web [1]
Reason Shows the Temple Mount with the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and a large part of the old city of Jerusalem -- Berthold Werner (talk)
Review
(criteria)

 Comment - Thank you for nominating this image! Unfortunately, it is not geocoded. However, I believe it can be easily resolved. If you need help finding the exact location this image was taken from, please provide me with some more details and I'll try to help. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the location were in the EXIF Data (the one in my archive had it). Now added. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Very nice and interesting. French annotations added. Would be fine if you could distinguish on this picture a jewish holy (or particular) place. Then we should have a more informative photograph, showing how this city is unique in the world, as special for the three great monotheistic religions. If you can do that, I'll give here a strong support, as an evident best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much left of holy jewish places due to the demolition in the year 70. The long wall was part the subconstruction of the temple mount, build by Herod I. And there is a jewish cemetry at the wall. The holiest place of the jews is the western part of this wall on the other side of the temple mount. Nevertheless I added this few informations and a link to a photograph that shows the same place 2000 years ago (in a model ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the wall and the cemetery were what I hope you will distinguish, thanks. French annotations added. But no thanks to Titus Caesar...--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think the scope is relevant. If I were standing on the mountain of olives and looked in the other direction, I would see something totally different. I'm not convinced a view from scope is acceptable. Lycaon (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment imho the usage shows that this is an important and interessting view and worth a vi --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope changed from View from the Mount of Olives to iew of Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
  •  Support The good one for me, after this changing scope.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Basically, per Lycaon. I don't really see why we should have "view from" subscopes (which doesn't mean such images aren't useful to the projects, of course). --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We won't promote a single image for a simple Jerusalem scope (or any other notable city), even if it's a so well-known view. If we use subscopes, [panoramic] view from <direction> seems useful to me.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason why a wide panorama showing a reasonably large portion of the city could not be promoted with the scope "Jerusalem". I really don't think subscopes are intended to promote various points of view or formats of the same scope. I think the aim of subscopes is to put a stress on a particular, intrinsic aspect of the main scope. For a city, I guess it would be about different parts of the city, if notable and distinct enough (I have no clearcut example in mind). --Eusebius (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You would support a nomination for a scope where the related category has several thousand files to compare? Then let's change! --Ikar.us (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that precise case, the scope could be defended, because a view of Jerusalem showing the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives is strongly symbolic and evocative (« O Gethsémani... ») but in general cases, I agree with Lycaon and Eusebius to consider that "view from" (sub)scopes aren't relevant. For once I remain  Neutral. --Myrabella (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Maybe are you right, Myrabella, but as you note, it is a special city, and a very special point of view...--Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose =>
undecided. Ikar.us (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Jerusalem_Dome_of_the_rock_BW_14.JPG&oldid=39019674"