Support I have checked this submission agains all six criteria and am satisfied that they are met. For the record, I wikilinked some of the text. Martinvl (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm a little concerned that the scope does not include the fact that this is an artificially illuminated night-time scene as there is a clause in the buildings scope guidelines suggesting that generally the image should be taken in daylight. So this scope does exclude a guideline-compliant daytime image being promoted for the same building. But I won't oppose if others think that contravention to be acceptable. DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, I'm supposing that the general case wouldn't include the illuminated image being this vastly superior to any other picture. However, if going forward, you think it would be best to limit this picture's scope, I see no reason to object. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't think we should assume that no-one will ever produce a gem of a photo the same building in daylight. We could/should leave that scope free, in case that happens. We could just add "illuminated", or similar, to the scope here, to allow for, or even encourage, a valuable future daylight photo. DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and DeFacto: The standard procedure is to set up a MVR and if the new image is judged to be better than this image, then this image will lose its VI status which will be passed to the new image. Martinvl (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: that might be the case if both images were for the same scope. But my point is that there is room here for more than one scope.I think this image should be in a scope qualified as "illuminated", which would leave the current scope used here vacant for an image in normal daylight (as recommended by the guideline I linked to above). DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 14 May 2017 (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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment The change is fine, but I will take this opportunity to register my disagreement with the change of scope. In my view, the image shoudlk either be accepted as the best image available for the theatre (with which I agree) or be disqualified for being taken by floodlight (which I think is pushing the rules too far). I totally disagree with creating a special scope "(illuminated)". Martinvl (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
