Review
(criteria) |
 Comment Hum. I'd rather make the scope "Chantiers Dubigeon" and show a view of the main site on Beaulieu island, with (ideally) the administrative buildings, the launching pads and the yellow Titan crane. To me, the Chantenay site seems only an annex. I'll work on a Commons category for the Chantiers. done. --Eusebius (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this one? --Eusebius (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first Chantiers Dubigeon were set up in Chantenay. the pict u show is when Dubigeon was bought by Chantiers de la Loire. So it's not an annex at all. Regards,Cyril5555 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let me explain my point better. As far as I can understand, the original site was neither Chantenay nor the island, but a place which is not anymore near the river (due to the works after WWII). Apparently Chantenay is the second site, and indeed older than the island site. Nevertheless, the island site seems older than the sale to the Chantiers de la Loire, since the Belem was launched from the slope number 2 at this site, 16 years before the sale. The WP articles about the two companies are not totally consistent, I'm afraid. My point is not about historical primacy though, it is about 1) my belief that the Beaulieu site has always be the place of the heavy works. It was the case at least until the war, and I'm pretty sure that most military ships came from the Beaulieu site. It is also about the fact that 2) If you ask anyone from Nantes where the Chantiers Dubigeon are, you'll probably get the Prairie au Duc (Beaulieu) site in 90% of the cases. I truly think it is the site most representative of the Chantiers, at least visually with the main administrative building, the yellow Titan crane and the visible launch pads. --Eusebius (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I get your point. Ok Beaulieu is was the heavy production site, but we have to consider that Chantenay is the root of Dubigeon's expansion (after the begining near the bras de la Bourse), and I think it is bad to abandon this part of Dubigeon's history because the mass doesn't know well the past. And even public tourism tours give lots of importance to Chantenay's site. Shall we split chantenay and beaulieu's sites into 2 categories then ? Or can we consider that the 2 sites have their own importance and value ? Cyril5555 (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC) ps: see this website containing a drawing of dubigeon's site. Where ? Chantenay ![reply]
- I have never said that we should "abandon this part of Dubigeon's history", I just meant to say that for a Chantiers scope, the other site is more visually representative in my opinion (we're not writing the article, we're choosing which image to propose as the main illustration). I'm a bit reluctant to have two subscopes for the Chantiers: "Chantiers Dubigeon (Chantenay site)" and "Chantiers Dubigeon (Prairie au Duc site)" but other reviewers might find it interesting. --Eusebius (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At least the present scope should be changed IMO: it seems quite narrrow and doesn't refer to the real topic, "Chantiers Dubigeon", as the filename and the description indicate. So I tend to agree with the suggestion of a new scope Chantiers Dubigeon. I haven't a firm opinion yet about which view would better illustrate that scope, but I'd like to add some more words in the balance. Untidily: the nominated image isn't well catagorized now ; the Belem has been built in the Chantenay site according to [1]; the yellow Titan crane is emblematic but the alternative image is perhaps too wide (a cropped version could better serve the purpose); if necessary, a VI set could be considered for showing both sites. --Myrabella (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the panoramic picture : the yellow Titan crane was dubigeon's possession, but note the grey one (Port autonome de Nantes-Saint-Nazaire... same for Hangar à banane). between, it's hard to define what is specific to Dubigeon, Chantiers de la Loire or Port autonome. The advantage of the Chantenay's site is that it is for sure easy to define what is specific to Dubigeon. And last but not least as Myrabella said, the Belem has been built in the Chantenay. About a set of images I think this would give a broad view of Dubigeon showing the relevant sites. I guess I need a little help for that Cyril5555 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh, sorry about the Belem, I was absolutely convinced that it was launched from the slope number 2 on the Prairie au Duc. I agree about the width of the panorama, I know about the grey Titan (that's why I didn't mention it). You want to propose a VI with both sites? With what do you need help? I'm afraid I won't be able to take any pictures of the site, but I'll try. --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm a rookie in term of Valued image process, I need a technical help cause I'm ok with taking picts. I've uploaded more relevant picts. I think I've got now a good set of relevant picts of Dubigeon's history. I think the 3 picts below can apply for a "set of Valued_images"
  
- The pict of the Ateliers et Chantiers de Nantes building File:Ateliers et chantiers de Nantes (depuis la rive droite) - Nantes.jpg, after research, seems more associated with Ateliers et Chantiers de la Loire than Dubigeon (same for the old boilerworks File:Nantes 2008 PD 56.JPG). So I doubt putting these ones in the set selection. My question is : Shall I stop this candidature and make a new one as a "set of picts" ? How do I do this ? Cyril5555 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the VI set is a good idea, yes, but I also think we should discuss its composition here beforehand, so that you can nominate a set on which we can all agree. You can find the instructions for nomination here (there is also a French version), ask me if you have specific questions about the procedure.
- About the pictures: I like the set you propose (although it doesn't show the disposition between the elements), but I'd add the "Ateliers et Chantiers de Nantes" building anyway. It wasn't initially part of Dubigeon, but for me it is the same argument as for the whole Beaulieu site. Yesterday I took a little panorama from near the bow of the Maillé-Brezé (only focused on the Dubigeon site), it would show the whole site but gives a rather "flat" view of it (because it is taken from far away and from the same altitude) and doesn't offer a good sight on the large launching pad(s). Plus, I won't be able to process and uplad it before a week or two, and lighting was rather poor anyway (it probably won't be a very nice picture). I think your set is better, but I'd just include the administrative building. The hangar is difficult to show, since any recent picture of it would be a copyright violation of the La Machine's monumental tree. What do you think?--Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
_-_Nantes.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
