Oppose - I see no reason for withholding the geo-location. Since it is likely that there is more than one such car in existance and the numberplate has been blanked out, I do not see what the privacy problems are. Martinvl (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Info, @Martinvl: geocoding is only a VI criteria "when relevant" and one of the exceptions is for "non-place-related shots" - this shot is in no way place related. The subject is the car, not the car park - even if I gave you the geocode and you went there, you would not see that car there. Please reconsider your verdict. DeFacto (talk). 18:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: Did you come across this car by chance, or was it part of as rally? (I did notice as MGB-GT in the background, but alsdo a number of more modern cars as well). I suspect that it was photographed in a National Trust or similar car park rather than a city-centre car-park which tells me that the owners might well use the car for week-end driving, but not for everyday commuting. That tells me a bit more about the car. Martinvl (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: nothing you ask is relevant to the VI criteria, do you have a valid reason to oppose this image? What I will say though is: if you look at each of my existing car VIs, you will see that those clearly intended to be on public display at a rally or museum or whatever, are identified as such in the file description, and generally geocoded accordingly. DeFacto (talk). 21:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I am not convinced by your assertion that "... those clearly intended ... geocoded accordingly". What about the car with registration EC 2xxx? You know which one that is. Martinvl (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I don't have that reg. on any of my VIs as far as I can see. I repeat my question to you: do you have a valid reason to oppose this image? If you do, please state it. DeFacto (talk). 16:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: You annonymised it on the VI, but your original image should show EC 2xxx. If you want more evidence I will have to disclose the location of where you took the photo. Martinvl (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: if I anonymised it, it was because I wanted it to stay anonymous - so I'm not going to compromise that by confirming or denying your speculation. Similarly with locations. My policy on divulging locations is that if a car is clearly intended to be on public display at a rally, or whatever, I will generally give their location. For all other cars - including those being used to visit such public displays or collections but not clearly in the designated display areas or not displaying exhibitor passes (they may be in the car park or parked at the roadside nearby), I will not give their location. If you have questions about any other of my images, please raise them on the file talkpage or on my talkpage. Now perhaps you'll tell us if you have come up with a valid reason to oppose this nomination. DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the photo was taken ten years ago, privacy issues are much reduced. Why then do you stick to the privacy issues? The car might well have been sold on or might not even be still in existence!
Please confirm that you are inviting me to challenge the lack of geo-coordinates on the vehicle with registration number EC 2xxx on the images's talk page even if this means disclosing where the photo was taken. Martinvl (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I'm waiting for the reason you opposed this nomination of an image which is not place related and which does not require geocoding per the VI criteria here. If you want to discuss further the details that I have or have not included in the files of particular images please do it on their or on my talkpage. If you have worked out the location of an image that I have withheld the geocode of please do not reveal it, especially if there is a notice in the file asking you not to. Similarly if you are speculating about registration numbers. DeFacto (talk). 20:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geocode is not necessary here, and the question of hiding licence plates has been discussed many times before. It's the author's decision if he does it or not. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
