Info Identification based on Chinery, Michael - Insects of Great Britain and Europe, 2007. Photo taken indoors, in Porto Covo, Portugal.
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) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You forgot to cite the relevant phrase of the guidelines: Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I prefer the other shot, even though parts of the insect are out of focus, because on this one the chosen POV somewhat hides the disposition of the fore legs. Geographic information is enough for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have considered the alternative but finally decided for the present version, as it depicts better the shape and patterns of the abdomen (for id purposes), as well as the long legs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is most valuable per Alvesgaspar. It may be useful to state the capture location if different than the indoor photography location. If the insect found its own way indoors, that may be useful to know too. Walter Siegmund(talk)16:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info - This is the proper place to deal with the subject. The guidelines are very clear in the matter of individual privacy concerns and this is not the first nomination where they are applied. The botton line: the oppose vote is invalid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is definitely a case where the geotag can be omitted (both studio-like shot and privacy concerns). The "coarse location data" has been appropriately added to the image page. Rastaman, I think you should remove your opposition, or formulate a comment on another basis. --Eusebius (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebius, if you believe the image deserves indeed to become a VI, then why won't you support it? Then there will be 2 supports, and only 1 oppose, and the image will be promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info We tend to allow editors quite a bit of leeway when it comes to privacy issues. It goes along with assuming good faith and encouraging people to contribute. We certainly don't want anyone to be endangered by their work here. While I know of no examples here, I am aware of a number of instances where this occurred on enwiki. Walter Siegmund(talk)02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
