Comment Couldn't this also be said of your image (lack of an architecture category)? In this specific case it's a bit problematic to add a "built in" category because the building is Edwardian, but its current use is recent. -- Ingolfson10:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added year category now (for the old post office only), and changed the claimed scope somewhat (from 'Edwardian architecture' to 'Edwardian Baroque'. Could I ask you to reconsider? -- Ingolfson10:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies, but we have a misunderstanding - I thought you were talking about the image not having an architecture category/date of being built category (it now has the latter). I have now also added the geocoding, and changed the scope to Edwardian BAROQUE, instead of Edwardian ARCHITECTURE. -- Ingolfson11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point I've raised for general discussion (which is no longer relvant here) is whether a 'better' photographic image within the same scope can be used to oppose a nomination, even though the 'better' image is not in itself geocoded. With the new scope you have proposed, and the new categorization, I'm almost ready to support, but could you change the scope to "Edwardian Baroque architecture"? Otherwise, it could cover art of all types. --MichaelMaggs15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am a little bit confused about the history of this building, has it been renovated/undergone dramatic changes around 2001? -- Slaunger21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info The building was the old Chief Post Office of Auckland (see Image:General Old Post Office Railway Station.jpg for an original view). Post office was closed around 1980s, I believe. In the early 2000s, an underground railway station was built underneath the back of the building (one day to potentially tunnel through under the plaza shown in the image). A glass fronted entrance was added at the back (see Image:Britomart02.jpg, thankfully it is too small to be visible from anywhere except the back, it looks horrible). So yes, in the time up to 2003, it was renovated quite heavily, though the core and the outside is still very much the original. -- Ingolfson10:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, e.g., Image:Oldbaileylondon-900.jpg is better at illustrating the subject as it shows quite clearly the architectual elemnts of this style, it is not cropped at the top as the candidate is. As a matter of fact there are a lot of good images of Edwardian architecture on Commons, but they are not so easy to find because there is not a single category which fits well to the scope. Even if you narrowed down the scope to, e.g., "Edwardian architecture in New Zealand" the nominee would still have some severe comtetition. For instance, I think this New Zealand building is also a better illustration of the topic. -- Slaunger09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
