Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (is not geocoded). Lycaon (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's very easy: If you know the location, the tool [1] will give you the complete location dec template for Commons. You can edit the place (Strg+click) and the direction (Shift+click).Lipedia (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just that we don't know the location. The center of the runway of that airfield isn't the exact solution, but we probably can't find the precise location. So what to do? --Ikar.us (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exact is not always necessary but adding geocoding to an image you didn't take yourself should be done judicially. Lycaon (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that using the tool, the resolution limit is something like a 30mx30m square, maybe even more than that. If you can get it to within that sort of range, you're fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Precision requirements shouldn't be defined by a poor tool. Some images deserve a dm resolution. But in this case, we won't get better than a few km. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some images may deserve it, but I doubt it'd really be possible to get much better than 100 ft using anything short of a military-grade GPS at the time of photography. Also, it says it's over Bear Lake. There's a cabin rental area near Bear Lake which is part of the base. After an hour's work trying to find the best match, I think I have a possibility. Evidence on the Image description page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Geocoded as best as is possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support too, the best aurora image for me. Aurora good, ground visible, without lights. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment The jury is still out on this one but I'm willing to give up on my opposition and settle with a less accurate location if the description is ammended (different Bear Lake -> criterion 4). It is probably the best illustration of the scope we have anyhow. See also this discussion. Lycaon (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, IMO, best of borealis, and australis too.
 Question Does the word "aurora" design in English this phenomena only ? In French not. "Aurore" designs the short time before the sunrise, between night and day. Maybe the latin (scientific) words Aurora polaris could be more international as scope, and more useful ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems you're right. English-German dictionaries translate it at both Polarlicht and Morgenröte.
Temporary Oppose because of ambigous scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In English, "aurora" refers to this phenomenon only, see en:Aurora (astronomy) or [2]. "Twilight" is used for the period just before sunrise and just after sunset when it's still light. I haven't a clue what Morgenröte means. :S Also, if we do decide to go with a genericsed Latin term, it would need to be the plural. Aurorae, Wiktionary tells me, so I guessed right! Latin is hard. :( --Matthew Proctor (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you native speaker? Then I restore Support and am going to report to the dictionary. Morgenröte (morning redness) is the red light above the horizon before sunrise, during twilight time. --Ikar.us (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, native speaker. "Sunrise" is used for the period where the sky is red before the sun, you know, rises, in English as well. Not the most consistent of languages. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, please have a look at this disambiguation page then. Some of your fellow native speakers list over a hundred (!!) possible meanings for the word aurora. Granted, some are obscure, but some are very competitive (e.g. the mythology one). So I guess refining the scope is not optional but mandatory. Lycaon (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I disagree. They are all names of things: places, albums, vehicles, people. Even the one that really counts, en:Aurora (mythology), is the name of a particular god. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a native speaker of English. Aurora, if not disambiguated, almost without exception, refers to the atmospheric phenomenon.[3] In biology, it sometimes appears in binomial names, e.g., Rana aurora, but that usage is disambiguated by context. Rarely, it may appear in literature or poetry to refer to the dawn or the goddess. This was more common before the twentieth century, and would not be understood by many twenty-first century readers. Please note that aurora may apply to planets besides Earth, e.g., Jupiter.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
