Commons:Valued image candidates/King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (edit).jpg

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

King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (edit).jpg

declined
Image
Nominated by Spongie555 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC) on 2010-09-23 03:11 (UTC)[reply]
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jigmer Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck
Used in Global usage
Reason It is already a VP in Royalty of Bhutan scope but now im nominating it under scope of his name -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Review
(criteria)

Previous reviews

  •  Oppose No, sorry, it has been promoted under the scope "King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, Royalty of Bhutan", which can be considered as nearly the same scope. Moreover 1) the new category is uncategorized itself (should be a subcategory of Category:Royalty of Bhutan+ a category for the date of birth and so on) and incomplete (there are other versions there); 2) you shouldn't alter the former review this way. I may give a hand to restore it and to amend the new category, but I don't think this image can be promoted twice under so close scopes. --Myrabella (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the point in the new scope. The old scope names him as king of Bhutan, not Kings of Bhutan in general. And on the image he is shown as king of Bhutan (or isn't this the royal outfit?). If there were an image of him in sports dress or farming, it could be considered for the new scope.  Oppose --Ikar.us (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is a complety different scope then the one it was promoted in before. This one is about him and the other one is about all the royalty of Bhutan(if you see it shows the first king of bhutans picture). Also Ikar.us its not kinda his royal clothes beacuse he wears it all the time beacuse in Bhutan theres a law you can only where this type cloth(like style) so he always has the robe. Spongie555 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. George Chernilevsky talk 07:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
[reply]