Opposeas 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 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page!18:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a geocoding also in those portraits: #1, #2, #3. In case of this talk the photo was taken in a photographic studio, so I think geocoding has no meaning. It could be made in other photographic studio on the second hemisphere and it would be no differance. I can only guess a position. JDavid (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with Rastaman about geocode, it's a studio shot, as mineral or metal samples. A geocode is not necessary, and is useless in this case. Nevertheless, I think that this pic is a little ... "mineral", and I prefer this one, not geocoded (but located), which looks more natural and human, and less "political propaganda". Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see absolutely no value in adding a geocode here, and do not understand why a good, professional photo in a neutral studio should be "political propaganda". -- H00513:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is written in those three photos above about place of taking? It's not a compulsory. Do you think it's a fog behind him? I think more important is photo studio conditions than formal information that it's a photo studio. JDavid (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the VI criteria is a requirement that the description has to state it's a studio shot? Sorry, but this formalism is ridiculous. Anyone can see that this is not a "place-related shot", thus fully compliant with the criteria. It's really pointless to keep on opposing any image that doesn't explicitly name excuses for not having a geocode, no matter how obvious the reasons and the irrelevance of the location are. -- H00522:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rastaman. Lycaon (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC) The issue with criterion 5 (geolocation) is that it has to be clear and unambiguous (there is not such a thing as everyone can see). To avoid discussion one should do one of two things for a VI nomination: 1. Geocode (if this is done reliably everything is fine, but has to be checked → cf Cultus Lake nom). 2. Add an indication on the file that it is a studio/lab image or that there is another compelling reason why geolocation is not appropriate. There are several ways to comply with the latter: (i) just mention the words studio image, lab picture or something similar; (ii) state the reason why geocoding is not appropriate (e.g. privacy concerns, rare/protected species); (iii) add a non-geocoding category (e.g. Category:Location not applicable). The author/uploader of the image should add the for him/her least intrusive method. Lycaon (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these recommendations; could you copy them on the VIC talkpage as they are of general interest for the VI project? --Myrabella (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
