This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
You absolutely can go there in person, and take photos, and post the photos in Commons and use them in the town article, and refer to them in the article text. You absolutely can do that. This is effectively an exception to the wp:OR policy. This is how Wikipedia works with photos, although many editors are not aware of it. I and other editors in the historic sites area are thoroughly aware of it though. And it is not a "local consensus". See for example wp:IMAGEOR. --Doncram (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, oh really? It's effectively a photograph. I can read the sign much better from the Google Streetview than I can from the commons photo. I don't see how it could be dismissed. And in general photos are allowed to introduce new information, i.e. they are an exception to wp:OR in that you can take a photo of a historic site and then you can make statements in the text that are obviously supported by the photo. It is too bad that the Google Streetview won't always stay there, but I think it has to be like off-line books: they are reliable and are not required to be always easily available to everyone. Okay, i will go take a look at that discussion. Thanks for your attention.
Hmm, there is not any current ongoing discussion; the first link is to a summary (okay, it can be called a discussion) whose most challenging statement relevant here is: "It can also be difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations, since Google Maps data is not publicly archived, and may be removed or replaced as soon as it is not current. Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research." However, here by the way I am not reading the sign solely from Streetview, because there is the Commons photo which just cannot be read as well. And that discussion does not prohibit using Streetview. It is akin to saying primary sources can be problematic sometimes, but wp:PRIMARYSOURCES (i think) says they can be used with care. About the fact that photos can legally provide OR within Wikipedia, that is covered at wp:IMAGEOR within the wp:OR policy page. So I think there is not a problem here; there is no reason to question my statement of what the sign says.--Doncram (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
