Comment - I wonder if the so named scope is too broad or not because while browsing the categories under this scope name I found some other interesting monuments to Pushkin. I don't say that every statue needs own scope but what if we narrow a bit the area and call it Statues of Pushkin in Moscow. Let's see what others think.--MrPanyGoff20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I beg to disagree : in my opinion, a scope "Statue of [any poet]" is not a too narrow, unless it is masterpiece work of art. Same argument as in this other former VIC. If we consider the statue as a piece of art by itself, the sculptor must be know then and noted in the description -isn't it Alexander Mikhailovich Opekushin here?- and the scope adjusted, for instance "Statue of xxx by yyy" -> an example there.--Myrabella (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. To summarize - we have three possibilities of interpretation when it comes to a statue, depending on the relation of the scope with the topic lists (galeries): 1) If we refer the scope to section People considering the statue as a portrait then the scope should be named after the man it represents - in this case: Alexander Pushkin. (we already have photos of statues as portraits) 2) If we refer the scope to section Works of art considering the statue as a piece of art (meaning sculpture or architecture) then the scope should be named: Statue of Pushkin by XXX. 3) If we refer the scope to section Places considering the statue as a memorial-monument (meaning a landmark of some place) then the scope should be named: Statue of Pushkin, Town or better Monument to Pushkin, Town. Of course when some image obtain own scope in 2) or 3) it has to be a notable sculpture and respectively notable monument. I think that the nominator here doesn't mean 1) so the question here is: a Place or Work of art. Both are OK, imo.--MrPanyGoff16:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
