Comment As registraton number and livery can change with the plane operator, would a better scope be "IndiGo ATR 72-600 VT-IXW (aircraft) - in flight" with the same scope link? --GRDN711 (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done A good point. It is possible that the same regn no may be reused for another IndiGo ATR 72-600 aircraft. To cater to this, we would need the serial no in the scope which is messy. As this probability is very low, I prefer to keep the scope more concise by adding only IndiGo. @Archaeodontosaurus: Is this ok with you? --Tagooty (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I have thought about this further, here is why I like "IndiGo ATR 72-600 VT-IXW (aircraft) - in flight" as a scope. While there are no domain-specific guidelines fof VI scope of airplanes and I know this can be searched in the cateogorization, the addition of the operator and the model can be observed and verified looking at the image. The registration number sometimes can be too and is needed to really bring the specificity to this particular plane (agree that plane serial number is too messy). "In flight" is an acceptable sub-scope.
This is not an angst issue for me but I do think "IndiGo ATR 72-600 VT-IXW (aircraft) - in flight" is the best VI scope here as it supports the nomination of being the most valuable image of this particular plane. --GRDN711 (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, the Category name is used as the VI scope. Sub-scope is added if only a subset of the images are relevant, e.g. "in flight". Details such as the type of aircraft that are in the CAT page are usually not repeated in the VI scope. Hence, I prefer to omit ATR 72-600. --Tagooty (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTagooty After further thought, here is my thinking on this. Per COM:VICR (6) criteria, an image must be well categorized. Being categorized by operator, type of aircraft and registration number, this aircraft image is.
Per COM:VIS, while similar, a scope is a separate entity from the image categorization criteria and the scope-link category (where images representing the scope are found), being a “generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”. “Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page. If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope”.
IMHO I would contend that details in the image categorization are often repeated in the VI scope and that "IndiGo ATR 72-600 VT-IXW (aircraft) - in flight" pulls it all together nicely for your VI nomination. This scope would also allow someone with another image of this aircraft with same operator, type of aircraft and registration number to make an MVR comparison based on this well-described scope. This is how scopes are supposed to work and be written – not too narrow, too wide but just right as a “generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”. --GRDN711 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done It is true that details are repeated in some VI scopes, eg. artist + title + location of a painting. On the other hand details are not repeated in many VI scopes. In this case, I accept your arguments. --Tagooty (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
