Review
(criteria) |
- While this ship has one retained name to date, ships can have as many as a dozen names over their working lives along with changes in ownership, registry, painted colors and home ports.
- Only the IMO (International Maritime Organization) number, assigned when the hull is built and retained for the useful life of the ship, is considered a unique identifier. In keeping with this, Commons categorizes all large ship images by IMO number (similar to species categorization for a bird) and then sub-categorizes ships by name, transportation type and build year (sub-species equivalent).
- To my thinking, a better VI scope here would be ”Stenberg (ship, 2003) - IMO 9283978” with the same link to the “Stenberg (ship, 2003)” sub-category.
- Comments welcome. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRDN711: I don't see any reason why we should proactively pre-empt something which might never happen. If Stenberg is sold, it will be renamed as other IMOs have been and presumably repainted in the livery of its new owner. Any decent photograph of that ship will not be of Stenberg, so it can coexist with this nomination as a VI in its own right, despite the same IMO. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodhullandemu: I am struggling with a larger issue here than just expression of the scope definition, although I believe what I proposed is equivalent to yours, but with more universal application.
- Valued images are “most valuable of their kind for use in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects”. Just like the VI domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, plants, buildings, works of art and natural sites, not any ship image is worthy of a Valued Image rating.
- With the current scope of “Stenberg (ship, 2003)”, your image is nominated as the most valuable image of this ship based solely on its “Stenberg” name. This seems a very narrow scope for VI.
- While the Stenberg is a tanker carrier of chemical and petroleum-related products, the scope does not make a wider claim that this ship image is most valued in being the best tanker of its kind at Commons.
- Right now, there are only about 60 ship images with VI ratings, but there are thousands of ship images at Commons. If your scope definition is acceptable, this means that every ship in every one of its name combinations could qualify for a VI rating.
- Without guidance, I am trying to better understand what is an acceptable scope (not too narrow; not too broad…) for a ship image nomination and whether yours is too narrow.
- Do you have further thoughts on this? Open to comments from others as well. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, no. If anyone else thinks the scope is inapproriate, fine. I have better things to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Oppose Good image but scope is too narrow for VI. Will leave it to others to disagree. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]
 Comment Sorry, I'm really not in the mood for bad jokes. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support We are not far from an agreement. For a ship you must display the IMO code, it's like the binomal for biology. It is very easy to put it in the caption as I did in this case and that can be enough. But we can also put it in the scope. Other advice would be welcome. --c(talk) 05:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know about IMOs until reading this discussion, but if GRDN711 and User:Archaeodontosaurus say it must be in the scope, then I'm not sure why User:Archaeodontosaurus and Martinvl (who agrees with him), have supported a scope without the IMO. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: Not every ship has an IMO - HMS Victory certainly did not (IMOs were only introduced in 1996), nor do many vessels that only ply inland waters. See en:IMO number. Therefore making the IMO a mnadatory part of the ship's scope is over the top and in many case makes an impossible demand. M oreover, if a ship is sold, then it will invariably be repainted and will be visually different. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why people have such a problem with the IMO, which refers to the hull of the ship only and is invariant across its life. Stenberg currently occupies that IMO. But if it is sold to another operator, that operator is free to gut the hull, rebuild the superstructure, repaint it in its own livery and rename it. It is a different ship apart from the hull, and I would say that a decent photograph of that ship, in its own category, is a candidate for a VI OF THAT SHIP. If you want a VI for the IMO, i.e. the hull, you'd pick the best from any of the ships inhabiting that hull. That's why the IMO does not need to be part of the scope. You know, in relation to coronavirus, we listen to the experts. Why can't we do that here? Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed the 60 other VI images of ships and many are defined by a scope that just requires the ship be uniquely identified. I personally think ship scopes for VI should be wider than this, but unique ship identification appears to have been past VI practice and consensus.
- Some images are thrown in haphazardly into Commons with a name (or not). In keeping with Commons practice, Rodhullandemu has correctly categorized this image as Stenberg (ship, 2003), listed as a sub-category of IMO 9283978. The addition of the IMO number in the image description as suggested by User:Archaeodontosaurus is also beneficial in uniquely identifying the ship.
- I am changing my vote to support this VI nomination.--GRDN711 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Much appreciate that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
