Commons:Valued image candidates/New England Tree Frog - Litoria subglandulosa.jpg/Archive of previous reviews

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  •  Request Should be geotagged. Lycaon (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I know, but this is the only image we have of this endangered species and it shows the subject very well. But if it disqualifies because of it's lack of geocoding, I understand. (Personally, I'm biased. I think geocoding for images animals, even if they are in their natural habitat, is overrated. Still I wish it had at least some info about it's location.) Rocket000 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Hum, if you allow me to quote the phrasing of the geocoding criterion: "Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots, unknown locations"... Linking in the scope modified. --Eusebius (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wohow! The value of an in situ image without geocoding? Unknown locations are an exception? That's a big wide open door! Bye bye criterion 5. Or am I too pessimistic? Lycaon (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, that was just a quote. Maybe it's the occasion for you to propose a rephrasing if you think this one is not appropriate. --Eusebius (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the quote, I hadn't realised. Guess I will propose a rephrasing. Lycaon (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment It was never the intention that the geocoding requirement should be a wide open door, and IMO we need strong mitigating reasons for promoting it without a geolocation - I can see an attempt to get in contact with the creator on his talk page has not been done. I will enquire the user, lets see if we can get some more information... --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            •  Comment the creator has not responded (yet) on his talk page on my enquiry regarding geocoding. I will close it now as declined. The VIC can be renominated if some location info is added later on. --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since the species is threatened, regional location is sufficient as (in fact) already specified in the geocoding criterion. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per discussion above. There are several ways to indicate a geolocation without revealing the exact position, but here none are used. Examples are here and here. Lycaon (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. Lycaon (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/New_England_Tree_Frog_-_Litoria_subglandulosa.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews&oldid=19806007"