Comment To me, a complete set of the statues of the Grande Commande would be more appropriate, or at least of each main group (the four statues making up The Four Parts of the World for example). --Myrabella (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not incompatible. But in my opinion, the nominated statues (this one, and "Europe", and some others) deserve an own scope. There are many pictures of each, a category, copies etc... they are made by different sculptors, and some of them are known as the masterwork of these sculptors. But I agree, a set (or several) should be nice too.--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please note that this statue is not quoted among the main works of this sculptor in WP articles (considering that thread discussed at the moment, whit the following proposition: "A scope is usually broad enough if it is the topic of one or more articles in our sister projects, or occurs more than a few times in a search of the scholarly literature (e.g., Google Scholar)." and the current guideline: "Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way."...) Furthermore, this statue (like the others of the group) was ordered and delivered as a part of a whole. In addition, the sculptors were the executers, the original design being the work of Charles Le Brun inspired from Cesare Ripa’s Iconologia.--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note, that if this statue is not quoted among the main works of this sculptor in WP articles (and it could change easily...), it is quoted "among the most famous sculptures of the Jardins de Versailles" ("parmi les plus célèbres sculptures des jardins de Versailles..."), by the Château de Versailles Administration itself, which is not a contributive wiki... The document shown use the words "Chef d'oeuvre" (Masterwork) !! I agree the statue was ordered as part of a whole, but I disagree it was delivered and used as part of a whole, because the initial project was uncompleted. Each statue has his own sculptor, his own history, and is a work of art by itself. As for the executers... I don't understand in what it decrease the value of the work. Give me a drawing by Le Brun, and you will see very quickly that I'm not able to sculpt any statue...--Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thread discussed is only a proposition for now. And still for now, I think that the nomination is good, according to the above-quoted current guidelines (please notice furthermore that it says : a scope is justified FOR INSTANCE if the work etc etc...)--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. The vote was also a kind of test of the proposition suitability. Side comment: Maybe the strong words of the sign are also to comfort the patrons who financed the restoration of this statue. Some others are still needing patronage... --Myrabella (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J'avais bien compris ton intention. C'est amusant. Mais c'est dur d'argumenter en mauvais anglais, désolé ! Ton commentaire sur le mécénat ne serait pas complètement de parfaite bonne foi que je n'en serais pas autrement surpris, si ?....Tiens, rien que pour toi, j'en ai remis un couche plus bas, mais après j'arrête ! Tu m'as forcé à bosser mes nominations, c'est bien !--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
