View opposition |
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2010-06-21 22:26 (UTC) |
Scope:
Pusher boats |
Reason:
A "pusher" at work on the Seine river in Paris. There is no specific category, but one can find a lot of other pictures on this theme in "Commons". I think this one could be promoted as the most valuable, because of details and not so bad quality. -- Jebulon (talk) |
Categories don't distinguish pushing and pulling. :( --Ikar.us (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I find the background very distracting. Have found two examples where the outline is better visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Sorry to be irksome, but shouldn't we say "Pusher boat" rather than "Pusher ship
s"? The first term seems much more in use than the second one ([1] vs [2]). I don't know well the differences between "boat", "ship" and "vessel" (neither in French between "bateau", "navire" et "vaisseau"), but a ship is commonly a rather big boat, isn't it? And a tug or towboat is usually smaller than the ship it pulls/pushes. As instance, the tiny one in File:Argenteuil - Seine pousseur.jpg can be said a boat but not a ship. --Myrabella (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think vessel is the generic term. To be a ship and not a boat, a vessel has or had to, depending on context:
- have three or more yard-rigged masts
- be equipped to accomodate its crew over an extended period of time, thus operate independent of harbours
- be heavier than 500 register tons
- have the military rank of a battalion
- be able to carry other vessels
- be able to transport any payload exept their crew and equipment
- …
- None of these criteria is useful for pushers, only the 2. could be applied, IMO. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIMO, prefixes "tug" or "tow" are not good here, because they don't distinguish between push and pull. What I show, and what I submit to your judgement "pushes". Then, it is a "pusher" (term in use). Furthermore, nobody in French can say that "my" boat (or ship) is a "remorqueur". I think that we all agree.
Now, is it a "pusher vessel", a "pusher boat" or a "pusher ship" ? The category "pusher ship" exists in "Commons", but shows pushers and pullers... What shall we do ? If boat=bateau and ship=navire, then it's a boat, to me. Because it's more natural to me to say "bateau-pousseur" than "navire-pousseur", as I say "bateau-lavoir" and "navire-hopital"... As you like it ! Maybe an English native speaking reviewer could help ? Britts are specialists of naval things, aren't they ? "Rule Britannia", as said Surcouf... --Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to insist: the more I see this one, the more I find it more illustrative than others. One can see that it "pushes" something (a barge), but what it "pushes" is nor distracting neither disturbing in the scope. In other words : it's a pushing "pusher", but only a "pusher".--Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores:
1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 <--
2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0
3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1
4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0
5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1
6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2
=>
File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined.
File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined.
File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined.
File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-22 07:50 (UTC) |
Scope:
Pusher boats |
Reason:
Top side of boat is visible. Pusher is in the foreground, nevertheless we see what it pushes. -- Ikar.us (talk) |
Oppose (may I, as nominator of a competitor ?) IMO, out of scope. It's a convoy, not a pusher ship. Furthermore, the background is ugly and much more disturbing. (roadsigns, "tag" on the embankment, lock)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I remove my oppose vote, because I wont to be considered as not a gentleman by Myrabella, but my opinion stays. Moral and factual (not accountant) opposition.--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores:
1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0
2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 <--
3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1
4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0
5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1
6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2
=>
File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined.
File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined.
File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined.
File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-22 07:52 (UTC) |
Scope:
Pusher boats |
Reason:
Better background. (i.e. unremarkable - therefore I claim exception from geocoding, the movable ship is the only important object in the image) -- Ikar.us (talk) |
This is an example for a Rhine ship, which is not limited in height, like those on Seine or Havel. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
* Oppose (may I, as nominator of a competitor ?) Sorry, I disagree with your claim exception from geocoding, furthermore, I don't understand your argument about height limitation to make this one more representative...--Jebulon (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may. (Voting rules are anyway inconsistent.) This isn't an argument, just a remark that there are many different kinds of barges. (I would like scopes for all of them.) (There's no description field in Template:VIC.) --Ikar.us (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info VI voting rules aren't so inconsistent: "Any registered user can review the valued image candidates [...]. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it)." => the first nominator can vote, if he isn't the author of the competing images. However, some consider as more "fair play" or sportive not to, when their first nominated image has been put in a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores:
1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0
2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0
3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 <--
4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0
5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1
6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2
=>
File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined.
File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined.
File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Stunteltje (talk) on 2010-06-23 22:11 (UTC) |
Scope:
Pusher ship |
- Info Fixing a nomination made by Stunteltje. --Myrabella (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, because datails of the ship are visible. Am going to nominate a separate Schubverband scope, to illustrate what a pusher pushes. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1/ I Agree that
this image shows [a VI for this scope should show] well the characteristical square bow. 2/ May I suggest to slightly reword the scope in "pusher boat", because this term is more widely in use than "pusher ship" (([3] vs [4])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrabella (talk • contribs) 2010-06-24T15:04:26 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry to disagree with Myrabella. It is not a "pusher", but a "puller" transformed in "pusher". The metallic transformation visible here is not characteristic, because it was added, and the bow is not squared.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, should have looked better. Oppose, not typical. But I like the idea of a front view of an idle pusher for this scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledged. --Myrabella (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores:
1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0
2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0
3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1
4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0
5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 <--
6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2
=>
File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined.
File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined.
File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined.
File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. <--
File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
|