Comment@Rodhullandemu: - I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that this ship image is VI quality but disagree on the defined scope. Ships go into ports all the time. The “Liverpool” port location is not a sufficiently unique identifier that it should be part of the scope. This ship has had only one name to date. However, it is not unusual for ships to have as many as a dozen names over their working lives corresponding to changes in ownership, registry, home ports and new colors. Only the International Maritime Organization (IMO) number, assigned when the hull is built and retained for the useful life of the ship, is considered a unique ship identifier. In keeping with this, Commons categorizes all large ship images first by IMO number (similar to species categorization for a bird) and then sub-categorizes ships by name and build year (sub-species equivalent). A better VI scope here would be "scope=Category:MSC Virtuosa (ship, 2020) - IMO 9803625" with the category link to “Category:MSC Virtuosa (ship, 2020)” representing all images of this ship by IMO# having the “MSC Virtuosa” name assigned in 2020. The VI scope would be a little wider than current but more appropriate as the most valued image of this unique ship with this unique name. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scope is sometimes problematic when it has no business to be. This IMO/ship confusion persists and I find Wikidata's attitude to it perplexing. However, I have specified that this is MSC Virtuosa on its (delayed) maiden voyage which is certainly notable enough to be worthy of VI. It won't happen again. It's a unique event for this ship, IMO, whatever. Meanwhile, due to the wrong information from elsewhere I have to go to Newton-le-Willows for one hopefully last time tomorrow, and I need some rest and sleep once I get to the end of my Merlot. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
