Oppose uncategorized. Besides, I think that in such cases the name of the city and country should be included in the scope. And I think a street is too narrow a scope for a VI (unless it has something special or is famous for some reason justifying a category). --Eusebius (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And now it is categorized. I thought the neighborhood would be of enough information, since the city and country are present in it's description, but I can add this to the scope. And yes, this street is world famous and try making a picture of it without people. Wikipedia should be glad to have this picture. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The interest of the place is more noticeable now that the picture is categorized. Yet, I am totally unable to determine whether the picture describes the essence of the scope (which appears to be a district and not only the street). There seem to be many buildings of interest in the area, only few are on the picture (the ones in this precise street). And if it is a very popular street, as it seems to be the case, is it representative to show it empty on a VI? (This is not a rhetorical question, I really don't know) --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, we do not have to spell out the scope so much. The neighbourhood, Malá Strana is a unique name on Commons (so far) and already a category. So I think a shortened, linked scope like "Mostecká, Malá Strana" would have been sufficient for anyone to figure out, what it is about. Not a big deal, but just a thought I had. I can accept the current scope as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a remark: Here you inserted a link in your sentence, which is a nice way to show where to find info about Malá Strana, but when the scope is itself a link, doing this is impossible. This is why I suggested the geographical precision. Yet, keeping the scope simple seems like a good guideline. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. However, on image pages and in pro motion messages the scope is shown with its embedded links, so there it adds value. The issue you are talking about is primarily a problem on Commons:Valued images by scope. The bot also cannot (yet) handle to strip of all kinds of embedded links when linking to the scope on that page. But I would say it is a matter of time the code is being continuously updated to handle new special cases. Linked scopes will also be useful in the proposed subpage galleries, I have just mentioned on the talk page. So, in general, i would recommend using links in the scope if relevant. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionEusebius, you have voted neutral and support on this VIC. It seems quite evident from your comments that you simply have forgotten to strike out the neutral vote. Would you please confirm that by striking it? Thank you. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
