Commons:Valued image candidates/Snowdrop (ship) in dazzle colours.jpg

Snowdrop (ship) in dazzle colours.jpg

undecided

Image
Nominated by	Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-08-17 11:37 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Snowdrop (ship) in dazzle colours
Used in	Global usage Wikidata:Q6720053
Reason	Lots of competitors, but this is a high-resolution image of a full side-on view and with a fairly neutral background, to show the dazle colours to best advantage. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Review (criteria)	Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment There are two fixable issues here – Category link is fine but the scope needs better definition linking the image to this specific ship. Suggest “Snowdrop (ship, 1960) – IMO 8633724, in dazzle colors” as a better scope definition. As mentioned, there are many images of this ship in its dazzle color format, with few good ones. The nominated image has merit but can you increase the contrast and saturation for better separation from the background?  Comment I've always taken the view that we should regard our category structure as something like a C++ inheritance tree in that properties of parents are inherited or overridden by the child/ren. In this case, the position of this category/scope in the hierarchy should make it utterly plain which ship is being discussed, so the IMO is also redundant. As to changing the contrast and saturation, I prefer my photos to represent reality and not introduce artificialities. The colours are already bright but not garish. If you think there's a better image, please feel free to nominate it in an MVR. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment Category and VI Scope are two different entities. Scope is a key element of any VI nomination and well described at COM:VIS. A category is where you find a VI-nominated image of a defined scope. A VI scope can be wider, the same or tighter than the category the image is assigned to. If you search on the internet or even in Wikipedia, there are several ships named “Snowdrop”. There are also images of this same Mersey ferry when named the “Woodchurch”, both before-and-after the Peter Blake color makeover. My issue with your scope is that it is too loosely defined for the image you nominated. An IMO# is assigned when the hull is built and stays with the ship for the lifetime of the ship, irrespective of name and owner changes. Most larger ships have an assigned IMO# displayed on the hull and it is used as a basis for Commons categorization of ships. IMHO, “Snowdrop (ship, 1960) – IMO 8633724, in dazzle colors” would be a well-defined VI scope for your image that I could support. As for representing “color reality”, color rendition in a digital image is modified by various image processing algorithms from the instant you make the image in your digital camera. It is perfectly acceptable to make modest post-improvements in color rendition of an image. I reluctantly accepted your technical argument of this image being a better VI than others (*MV Snowdrop, River Mersey (geograph 4581209).jpg) but it was close. A little tuning of contrast and saturation (nothing garish) would enhance your image and support your case. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment Funnily enough, I know what IMO numbers are, and how to suck eggs. I'm disinclined to make any changes. I have 1449 VIs already, I'm not greedy for more but it's good to see one's work appreciated. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)  Oppose As described above, scope is too loosely defined. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment I'm checking the 59 VIs in Category:Valued images of ships and I've yet to find one in which the IMO was required to be in the scope. I hope you're not suggesting our users are so moronic that they don't understand which ship we are talking about? COM:AGF. And with one support and one oppose, its status should still be "discussed", not "opposed", so I have fixed that for you. It's been a tricky day so I am now going to get drunk, because I've fcking earned it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment It is reasonable to request some futher identity (like you usually do with date put into service), especially if there is more than one ship called Snowdrop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment It is not reasonable to disambiguate when it's unnecessary, and I will not be browbeaten into falsifying an image. This is either the most valuable image in its scope, or it is not. If you don't think it is, well, failure to hit a target is not the fault of the target. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)  Comment I don't understand the dispute. Are you contesting the claim that there's more than one ship called Snowdrop? If you accept that there is, why would you resist disambiguating the nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. A1Cafel (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)