File talk:2007 04 25 - WWB 39.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2007 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Geocoding[edit]
I do not see how the geocoding hurts the image. Sure, the photo may have been taken anywhere; but it was taken in the Potomac. The photo shows a shallow portion of the river immediately adjacent to a major bridge construction site with silt being kicked up. My issue isn't with "Why geocode"; it's with "Why not?" --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because it does not add any encyclopeadic value. Besides: the image shows up on Google Maps and Google Earth, which is totally useless. BTW: the picture itself is, IMNSHO, also totally useless. I think I'll put in a request to delete it. - Erik Baas 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion debates aside, how does geocoding hurt the image? The more information, the better. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does not hurt the image, but it does hurt the user who is browsing maps:
- it takes time to load
- the user may waste some of his/her time by clicking and waiting for the (useless) image to show
- the number of images that are shown on a map is limited: if this one is ont he map, some other (probably far more useful) image is not
- the image is in the category "Images with locations", wasting space and time
- - Erik Baas 00:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then if the deletion goes through: problem solved. If the image is maintained: I assume that justifies its geocoding? There are plenty of images which are geocoded such that in Google Earth they are useless; but if looking at the photo: they are helpful. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, geocoding is not appropriate for this image (and many others; and I will remove the {location} template if I see one). - Erik Baas 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still fail to understand the justification. If an image establishes its value on Wikimedia: then it should have all necessary information that is available. Loading time is increasingly irrelevant as computing power increases; a user looking at it on Google Earth can just move onto the next image if it is not what he/she is looking for; the layers weigh images by usage and other criteria establishing importance; and clutter in the category is going to be inherent to its existence. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which translates into "I want it my way, no matter what you say". Thank you for showing me (again) that talk leads to nothing, and I wasted my time explaining; for the last time. Bah. - Erik Baas 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am maintaining the status quo of the image until you can justify otherwise or until somebody can point to an established policy stating otherwise. If the image is deleted: then yes, it doesn't merit having geocoding because it doesn't even merit being on Wikimedia. If the image is maintained on Wikimedia, however, then it has enough merit in itself and should be tagged with all available information. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which translates into "I want it my way, no matter what you say". Thank you for showing me (again) that talk leads to nothing, and I wasted my time explaining; for the last time. Bah. - Erik Baas 11:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still fail to understand the justification. If an image establishes its value on Wikimedia: then it should have all necessary information that is available. Loading time is increasingly irrelevant as computing power increases; a user looking at it on Google Earth can just move onto the next image if it is not what he/she is looking for; the layers weigh images by usage and other criteria establishing importance; and clutter in the category is going to be inherent to its existence. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, geocoding is not appropriate for this image (and many others; and I will remove the {location} template if I see one). - Erik Baas 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Then if the deletion goes through: problem solved. If the image is maintained: I assume that justifies its geocoding? There are plenty of images which are geocoded such that in Google Earth they are useless; but if looking at the photo: they are helpful. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion debates aside, how does geocoding hurt the image? The more information, the better. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I basically agree with Bossi here. This is an image whose value has been confirmed in the deletion request. It is a picture taken outside, so that a meaningful location can be given. If we ever start making a list of geocoded images by quality and usefulness, and then remove geocoding from the bottom 20%, then we can talk about removing the geocoding from this image. Until that point, it is an image like any other, and the location information should stay. --rimshottalk 12:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Bossi as well. We cannot predict all the future uses of our information, so we should concentrate on adequately categorising to properly accomodate the "extra", rather than deleting it. What I support is keeping the geocode here now, but working towards a way to distinguish geocodes by type in the future. --Specious (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
