Jump to content

Talk:Google Street View coverage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alfredokudai1 (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 26 January 2021 (→Inadequate lists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

South Korea available since june 2017?

I think you must check out the dates because i'm sure i saw Soth Korea way before 2017.

User:Alfredokudai1 edits

All edits of this user are unconstructive, unsourced and completely inaccurate. I recommend that this page be protected indefinitely and user blocked. Thanks.-EugεnS¡m¡on 21:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todas las ediciones de este usuario son no constructivas, sin fuentes y completamente inexactas. Recomiendo que esta página esté protegida indefinidamente y el usuario bloqueado. Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredokudai1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He translated your words in Spanish. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 16:422, 19 November 2020 (UTC)}}

If you want to make the article fully protected, everyone including you can't edit the article. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

Page protection nomination: - EugεnS¡m¡on 08:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That template is for requesting changes to a protected page. However you have now got my attention, so if that editor causes further problems I will look at blocking or protecting as appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik he's been doing the same thing on the Spanish Wikipedia. Skarmory (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please block Alfredokudai1, he keep changing dates non stop. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]
He/she has been blocked from this article for a week. They are welcome to post suggestions on this talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yay. Now we don't have to revert his edits for a week. CuteCat123 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is that we can make a constructive editor out of them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: It appears your hopes have been crushed. FDW777 (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He keeps editing and adding things without providing any kind of source, impossible to verify everything he writes... very annoying.KillerMapper (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that 90% of this article is unsourced, so it wouldn't seem fair to punish one party. If the article was properly properly sourced then it would be easy to enforce. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He keeps putting unsourced content after he was unblocked, what should we do? — CuteCat123 (CuteCat123 · talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should we block him back or not? — CuteCat123 (CuteCat123 · talk) 01:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So not only Alfredokudai1 keeps doing bad edits, randomly reverting and canceling edits and not providing sources (basically what he used to do for years in the Spanish version so good luck making him a constructive editor), we now have Daniel Halpert that keeps editing dates without any proof (I tried to find myself sources but no luck). They are unstoppable. KillerMapper (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for 1 month while Daniel Halpert has been blocked forever. We won't have to undo their edits anymore (at least for a month, we'll see what happens to Alfredokudai1 after this). CuteCat123 (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current coverage section: keep or remove countries without official coverage?

Currently the section lists almost all the countries, many of them only being listed for having "business views". The "business view" thing is a relic of the time when Google started doing views of businesses before letting other people uploading photospheres.
Since this article is about listing official coverage exclusively created by Google, I suggest this list to be cleaned so we only keep everything with official coverage (ranging from small interior view like Iraq to fully covered countries).
As an example I updated the list in the French article so you can have a preview of the result (note: some dates may not be updated in the list as I didn't finish to check everything; the article was abandoned for a few years before I started to update it again).
Feel free to give your thoughts about this here. KillerMapper (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - it's not very useful to have countries without official coverage on the list, with the possible exception of countries with basically full unofficial coverage, but even then I wouldn't include them personally, as it's still not official coverage. Skarmory (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. EugεnS¡m¡on 17:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody is against the idea I guess we can start cleaning it next week.KillerMapper (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This page is specifically entitled Google Street View. In the list of countries, those countries without official Google coverage should be unbolded, although it would be helpful if the info box is used to state if there is significant unofficial coverage available. Dadge (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: boldface could be used to denote official coverage, and the asterisk could be used to denote unofficial coverage (but not individual images, aka photospheres). Some countries, eg. Finland would be in bold and asterisked. Dadge (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020/12/08: cleaned the list, only keeping countries with official data published by Google. Feel free to add sources or complete if something is missing. KillerMapper (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally declined a pending revision regarding this discussion, and was confused about which talk page consensus it would be referencing. I've since re-allowed the edit, so, uh, sorry for any confusion. My fault. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 18:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove unreferenced material

Since certain editors think they can just add whatever they want and not provide references, it seems the only option available is to remove all the unreferenced material. At the same time I also plan to remove the number column from Coverage of Google Street View#Timeline of introductions unless there is evidence it is somehow official? I realise this might be controversial, but it appears to be the only way this article can be made policy compliant is to remove all the existing unreferenced material then keep a tight rein on any future unreferenced additions. Any objections? FDW777 (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page needs a complete overhaul especially on the sourcing:
- About the numbers I do think they don't make sense too because updates can still be missing and Google never numbered them. Instead we can keep them but per year so we can see how many updates each year had. That's what I did on the French page because I know it's missing many updates;
- About the lack of sources, it can be hard finding them back for older updates (some websites where people reported updates don't exist anymore) and I don't think removing old stuff is good. However we can definitely add sources for all the "current coverage" section: just find coverage on Google Maps and get a link from it (note: shortened links can be created to avoid overloading the page with very long links). For all future additions everything should be sourced (again Google Maps links are the best source) and people like Alfredokudai1 or Daniel Halpert that keeps adding random unsourced data should be warned about this so they stop contributing without sources.
That's what I think. KillerMapper (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the older stuff, and picking a particular entry at random, I see Carambola Beach, Buccaneer Golf Course, Isaac Point, St George Village Botanical Gardens, Rainbow Beach, Hams Bluff in the United States Virgin Islands has been added with a claimed date of Thursday, September 1, 2016. That's the reference, other than at the bottom where it says Image capture: Jun 2016 I can't see anything about when it was originally added to Google Street View. Plus that's an image of the beach, does that really reference Carambola Beach, Buccaneer Golf Course, Isaac Point, St George Village Botanical Gardens, Rainbow Beach, Hams Bluff in the United States Virgin Islands
The reason I'd really, really, really, prefer to remove the numbers is that if I remove a bunch of entries as unreferenced, I'd need to renumber all the ones I left in. And then if someone wanted to add back an entry for 2016, they'd have to renumber all the other entries again. It's a crazy system that makes maintaining the page impossible, you shouldn't need to renumber dozens of entries just to add or remove one. I wouldn't object to leaving them in with each year starting at #1, but as the entries are already listed in chronological order it's kind of redundant. But it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so I can cope either way.
Any removal wouldn't have to be permanent, information can always be added back if references are available, and if there is consensus for removal a link to the edit doing it would be placed here so people can see what's removed and what they might want to try and add back. FDW777 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we can do first is to gather as much references as possible instead of removing all unsourced edits. After a few weeks or months (so people can have time to search) we can start clean everything that can't be proven. KillerMapper (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's left a few months certain editors will just continue adding even more unreferenced material, making the problem worse. I'll give it until the end of the year. FDW777 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People like Alfredokudai1 and Daniel Halpert should be blocked immediately. CuteCat123 (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. However, as @MSGJ: said in a section above The problem is that 90% of this article is unsourced, so it wouldn't seem fair to punish one party. If the article was properly properly sourced then it would be easy to enforce. Since the two main problematic editors show no sign of being willing to comply with policy, I will implement my proposal sooner rather than later and remove all unreferenced, or improperly referenced content. This removal would be without prejudice to any of it being restored with adequate referencing. FDW777 (talk)
Sounds like a good plan. I wouldn't even wait till the end of the year - it is easy for people to look at old revisions if there is content that they want to add back in with references. Once overhauled, I will not hesitate to block disruptive editors. We can also change the protection if appropriate. Is PC1 working, or would ECP be more useful? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the unreferenced/original research from 2020, and will do the other years in due course. Since the problem is largely limited to new additions (2020, in theory at least), it's probably easier to see who is being disruptive now. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Exhibit 1, exhibit 2 and exhibit 3. Pure disruption. FDW777 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hopefully the article will be fully cleaned of unreferenced material by the time the block expires. FDW777 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CuteCat123: why are you restoring vast amounts of policy violating content to this article? Specifically the table at Coverage of Google Street View#Current coverage? When not completely unreferenced, the information in it is pure original research, being referenced only to Google Street View itself. Taking just the first entry (but the same argument applies to every location that is referenced solely to Google Street View), Åland Islands claims that the most recent imagery is from 2011-09 and the oldest imagery is from 2009-05. This is referenced by this and this. Who says those are the most recent and oldest? Nobody, except an editor drawing their own conclusion. This is not permitted, see WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC) I note that CuteCat123 was previously complaining about other editors posting unsourced content. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ and FDW777 The ones that violating it are Daniel Halpert and Alfredokudai1, not me. CuteCat123 (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section you have restored is full of unreferenced material and original research. There is no "I say it's right and should stay" exception to policy. The prior difficulty in getting any admin action to be taken was due to the fact there were multiple editors repeatedly changing unreferenced content back and forth so it was impossible to see who was right and who was wrong. The only way to prevent continued problems is to remove problematic content. As stated the content can be restored if properly referenced, but it cannot be restored without proper referencing. FDW777 (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point just remove the whole article then. Removing large chunks of it is nonsense, it removes its utility. If you don't want to keep the dates for the mentioned reason above then keep at least the current coverage section to list the countries with official GSV coverage. Removing everything is counter-productive. KillerMapper (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The community has repeatedly said we should have an article on this subject, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Google Street View, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coverage of Google Street View (2nd nomination), the latter only two months ago. Naturally none of the people involved in those discussions seem prepared to actually fix the problems with this article, as is usually the case.
The removal of the "Current coverage" or any other information is not necessarily a permanent change. The information can always be added back in some way with proper references. The fact remains that Coverage of Google Street View#Current coverage contains information that is either unreferenced, or original research where people are drawing conclusions about dates from Google Street View itself. The only way to solve the current problems with the article, and to avoid future problems of the same nature, is for this article to be scaled back to what is covered by secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with KillerMapper that removal of the entire Current Coverage part is too much, and one might as well remove the entire article at that point as a significant portion of the article outside of that is unsourced and because removal of Current Coverage would ruin any utility of the article. If Current Coverage should be removed until properly sourced, then at most the column with the most recent imagery should be removed. Not the entire thing. That being said, I also suggest that the "Image capture" date in Street View be considered an official message from Google as to the most recent streetview at that specific location, thus allowing it to be used as a source for that section of the article rather than being considered original research. Deepseamountain (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can agree or disagree as much as you like, it won't keep unreferenced material in the articlea. This is a straightforward WP:BURDEN issue, the burden of evidence to provide proper references is on anyone wishing to restore or add information. The "image capture" date proves nothing at all, except the date the location on screen was captured. It does not reference a most recent date for an entire country, city or even suburb. FDW777 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I meant to keep the section but without the dates. Just have a list of covered countries. Easy to source, just link to an official Street View panorama, nothing more is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerMapper (talk • contribs) 18:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to any content of that kind being added, providing it's properly referenced. For some reason people would rather spend time arguing in favour of keeping unreferenced material than doing that. FDW777 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing countries

The Dominican republic, Nigeria and a whole bunch of other countries are now left out despite the fact that there was, in fact, new street view of updated ones. Fix this RIGHT NOW! Wikisalowam537 (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references, they could be added. If you have no reference, they won't be. FDW777 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate lists

How are people supposed to know what locations were included in recent Street View updates and when the imagery was first and last captured? The page appears to have been heavily edited removing release numbers and dates. 2600:1700:A2A0:FB50:4D6D:CF08:29E1:5AC6 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia policies take precedence over your "need" to know things like that. There's still plenty more policy violating information yet to be removed. FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of mid-2020, Google's website shows many areas of Germany being added to Google Maps over the ensuing months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredokudai1 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden, Leipzig, Kaiserslautern, Dortmund, Gelsenkirchen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Essen, Wuppertal, Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn, Duisburg, Hanover, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Bremen, Berlin, Munich, Oberstaufen, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Freiburg im Breisgau and Mannheim.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Street_View_coverage&oldid=1002989980"