InfoPalauenc05Archaeodontosaurus In this nomination, I had some self-debate on using “port side” versus “left side” in the scope. I wasn’t sure everyone would be comfortable with the nautical bow-stern-port-starboard terms. My compromise was to put the more universally understood “left side” in the scope but include “port side” in the reason for nominating.
In VI nominations for other vehicle transport, the sub-scopes are usually defined in terms of front-back-right-left relative to the front of the vehicle, rather than driver side; passenger side.
Comment Sorry, but the new scope is redundant as "port" is always the left side of a ship. Hence, the scope is too wordy. Superfluous words should be avoided. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Agree with you, User:Palauenc05, on superfluous words. Currently there is not, but if there were COM:VIS domain-specific guidelines for ships, I assume you would favor the nautical terminology of bow-stern-port-starboard views.
In other transport like cars, trucks, tractors, motorcycles, I see view sub-scopes of “front-left” and “back-left” (along with “front”, “back”, “front-left”, “back-left”, “left profile”, right profile”) for full vehicle images, and this does not count the sub-scopes for key vehicle parts.
Would you be in favor of “front-port” as best describing the view of this ship image, or do you favor just 4 view sub-scopes for marine images? --GRDN711 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
