Comment Well, I see your point but when I nominated this I was thinking more along the lines of the gondola in the conteext of its evironment as opposed to a cataloguing of it bits as if it was an insect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VI is a collection of images that seek to describe as clearly as possible a living or inanimate object. That is why we have discussed that may seem odd for an egg or a shell ... Above all, do not turn away from VI, because I'm sure you've got pictures of values in your photographs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation seems to be one that VI is for simple cataloguing of things and ignores that context, or even beauty, has value. Of the millions of those that ride a gondola each year and the millions more that would like to ride in one I think the vast majority would find much more value in this type of image than one that details the minutia of its design parked alongside a jetty. An encyclopedia is supposed to be accessible to more than just entomologists and ornithologists. 77.241.100.19618:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The beauty is intrinsic to things, not knowledge. Knowledge requires the description and the value of knowledge result of the precision of this description. The value of an image gondola is not an exception. We work for an encyclopedia, not for a travel agency. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge is not just the sum of many parts. There is also the gestalt to consider. An enclyopedia that fails to reconise this is nothing more than a sterile catalogue. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
