File talk:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg

Do all the annotations add value or are they spam?

I am a bit torn about all the annotations on the file page now counting dogs, cameras, etc. Although I can see the amusement aspect, I think it is getting to the point where it has more character as spam than added value to the file page? The file page has actually been mentioned now at COM:VP#ImageAnnotator enabled as an example of misuse of the tool. I would not call it misuse myself, but I do see that we are getting close. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned by someone who doesn't seem to want the tool in the first place and hasn't found the gadget to deactivate it.

One could argue that no annotation and description is needed, as the file name describes the image.

If you are at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Crissy_Field_beach_and_Golden_Gate_Bridge.jpg I think more specific descriptions to identify parts of the image can help (e.g. head of person standing #8, wave next to dog#4 etc.). Personally, I didn't notice the sailboat in the fog before it was annotated. One might identify some of the dogs. It should be possible to find the names of the various hills. -- User:Docu at 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but besides the opponent, also one of the tools most active supporters also thinks this kind of use of the tool is of questionable value - at least that is how I interprete it. I think my point is that one should think carefully about which types of annotations are done, and consider if they are relly relevant and adds value. I think naming hilltops is perhaps OK, but counting dogs and annotating an arbitrary sailboat is of questionable value. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the count. The category is still there. Had you noticed the sailboat before? -- User:Docu at 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't notice the sailboat before - consciously at least, but I do not think it matters much either as I think there is limited value in pointing out every detail in such a photo. It is the overall impression you get when seeing all the details in context, which gives meaning. It had been different if it had been, e.g., a murder quizz. There such details could have been important, but that is (fortunately) not the case here. --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the thing I am not getting concerning the dog annotations and categorization is that, even if some of the dogs are identifiable these dogs are not good examples of illustrations of that dog. I mean you would not use it to illustrate a dog breed in an article as the subject would have to be identifiable in thumbnail size to be meaningful. The only dog related use I could think of would be a portrayal of the subject "walking the dog" in a densely populated area, but even then the dogs are so de minimis in the photo that its use for such a purpose is questionable, I think. Counting the dogs could perhaps give insight into the walking the dog density if supplemented by an estimate of the beach area shown, but that seems little bit too esoteric to be realistically useful? --Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the overall impression, I think any annotation is a nuisance and definitely not needed. Fortunately they are only activated if one hoovers with the mouse over the image.

The "walking the dog density" seems quite high (maybe not a good place for children), but one doesn't necessarily notice this at first. On File:Niesen6.jpg, I added an annotation for only one lake even if it's not the one mentioned in the description and it's not a good illustration for it. Still, I think it's an element of the image that should be identified and the hyperlink allows one to read more about it. There is another one that should probably be labeled as well (not Lake Thun either). -- User:Docu at 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that this was a correct fix to this page's problem. But that might be just my POV. --Jarekt (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of annotations.

Wknight94 boldly removed all the annotations with this edit. Although the thread above does question whether the annotations are useful, no consensus was arrived at. I'm not sure that removing all the annotations was a good thing, so I've reverted that removal, per "bold, revert, discuss" and brought it here to the talk, also per BRD. So what do people think? ++Lar: t/c 03:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with his removal of your annotations. At WP, they would violate w:WP:POINT and could lead you to be blocked. I don't know if there is a corresponding policy here at commons. Is there? -- User:Docu at 07:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Docu, wait, which removal are you agreeing with? I removed all of the annotations since 98% of them are useless. "A buoy? #2"?! How is that useful? "A shadow?" To me, Lar's "A piece of litter (#1 ?)" is on the same level as the rest, and they should all be removed. As for consensus above or elsewhere, the only person I see agreeing with Docu's plethora of annotations is Docu. Wknight94 ^talk 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure these annotations are "useful" but I'm also not sure they are harmful. Is this page used in any projects/articles/news stories or what have you? If so, yes these annotations are over the top. But I see this page as a good example of excessive annotation, it's useful to have one somewhere, and refer to it in the helps on annotation (as an example of what not to do). If the page is used in projectspace, a copy could be made for that. Reverting all the annotations without discussion probably wasn't a good approach, but per BRD here we are now. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As an illustration of what not to do, Template:ImageAnnotatorSandboxContent on a project page seems a much better method. Wknight94 ^talk 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be anything useful there. ++Lar: t/c 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You can drop that template on a project page and add as many annotations as you like. Then the annotations would be on the project page instead of in the image itself. Like this. Wknight94 ^talk 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, cool. So if the consensus here is that these annotations are mostly not useful and should be removed, is there a way to wholesale copy them to (some invocation of) that template? I can think of a way using deletion but it's kinda perverse. Also may not work since you can't move things to and from file namespace. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding your question so I'll just list what I did. I subst'ed that template on to my user sandbox page and saved. It makes a bunch of div tags formatted the way the image annotation functionality needs (I assume). Then I changed the image there to be this one. Then I copied the exact image note tags in this file into the proper area within the div tags (after some experimenting to figure out where that was). Wknight94 ^talk 22:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

As the image creator I believe that most annotations could be safely removed. I do appreciate very much Docu work on the image (thank you, and please, please do not get upset because of this), but of course annotate all the people and the dogs might have been too much. I would have left annotation for the sailboat because it is hard to see in a fog, and maybe few more like for example I was asked what the man on the most right is holding in his hand, so the annotation is usefull there I guess. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. I vote for that. Wknight94 ^talk 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too I guess. The annotations are all in the edit history of the page IIRC so given that they could be fiddled in somewhere else as an example, if desired. ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so do we agree that most of these comments are nonsen and could be removed? And if someone wants to test they can use a sandbox? --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we do, yes. Wknight94 ^talk 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed all of them now.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)