Oppose I'm uncomfortable with the scope, since the hotel is not in Paris, but in the formerly named "Disneyland Paris" (now "Parc Disneyland", which doesn't say much about its geographical situation). I would gladly rely on a link within the scope to provide the geographic information, but the Commons cat uses the former name of the place. I guess this should be fixed (or a gallery page could be created with the right name). Additionally, there are geometry problems (see the verticals), but they don't affect my vote. --Eusebius (talk) 09:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info - The scope was changed according to the present name. I did not create the new gallery or renamed the existing categories as I think that requirement is well beyond the existing VI criteria. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it was only a suggestion. Could you make the end of the scope "Disneyland Park" (en) or "Parc Disneyland" (fr) instead of "Park Disneyland", though? --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question How about the quite strict rules concerning Freedom of Panorama in France. It is not something I am very knowledgeable about, but is the image (and the images in the category) allowed here in the first place? -- Slaunger (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, forgot that. Stupid country. You're right, the image of the building is protected and we (Commons) normally need an OTRS authorization from the architect. However, nothing in the VI criteria prevents us for promoting this image... Maybe a word about licensing should be added in the 4th crit section? --Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo violates FOP in France (I do not know, but I have asked MichaelMaggs to give his opinion, as he is very knowledgeable about these things) we should not promote it as it does not make sense to promote an image, which in the end will be deleted. I realize we have not specifically stated this in the guidelines, but that is sort of a prerequisite for any image to even exist here. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question: does this interdiction apply to (a combination of):
Buildings situated in France?
Buildings designed by French architects?
Pictures of buildings situated anywhere, but used in France?
By "buildings", I mean "buildings whose architect is alive or died less than 70 years ago". I think it is only the first case, but it is a question I've always had... Finally, do we tag all these image with {{copyvio|...}}, is it the correct procedure? Thanks for the info anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - just buildings situated in France. You can use the copvio tag (with reasons) but where the image has been around for some time I generally prefer to nominate for deletion, if only to give warning to the uploader and to other Wikis where the image might be in use. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. For my part, I will take no action whatsoever regarding the pictures themselves, since I think this is a stupid law. Regarding this nomination, I guess it will be either withdrawn or declined. Eusebius (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
