Neutral Fulfills all requirements, but I would prefer a photo of the plane in flight. Also, geocoding both the object's and the camera's location is nonsense when it's obvious that the camera is only 10 m from the object. -- JovanCormac15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that it would be nice, but how are chances to ever get a licence-free in-flight quality image of a 45-year-old plane of which only 29 have ever been built? And about the geocoding, if someone searches for object position only, he will still find the image. what is the disadvantage of having both codes? Maintenance effort? None, this is permanent. Disk space? Nah. IMHO any image that has a single object as subject should have both geocodes. -- H00516:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be OK for this scope, but I think that a separate category is needed. Is the designation PD.808 or PD-808? Both spellings are used in the article and image title. Yann (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A separate category is not required. ("If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope.") I do not know how the correct name is, the sign on front of the memorial even has it without dot nor dash ("PD808"). Often there is not a single correct spelling. I've adhered to the both Wiki articles. -- H00522:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
