Talk:Grade I listed buildings in Exeter

Wrong pic for Presentation of St Mary Convent School

In the last few days 3 different users have each erroneously added this image, which is of the convent building on Wonford Road. The building in the list is actually the convent school, which is around 1 km away on Palace Gate, as should be obvious by checking the coords. - Aegoceras (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Plucas58: added the listed building template to the picture in question, which is the reason why it gets flagged up again and again. Agathoclea (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have removed the template. Aegoceras (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locally it is worthwhile watchlisting Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites/Unused images of listed buildings in England. The script two of us have been using (the other was a manuel edit) identifies images that are tagged but not used on the page. Normally it is quite obvious when a picture is not suitable and it can be rejected in the edit, but it will come up again and again until either the tag is removed or the slot filled with another picture. Agathoclea (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With your local knowledge, it would be helpful (but obviously not mandatory) if you might take a look through c:Category:Listed buildings in England with known IDs periodically to identify any mistagged images or categories. Living in the US, I have no local knowledge of the buildings for which I am adding pictures but, as Agathoclea said, am capable of spotting the obvious errors. This one wasn't an obvious error, and it is a good thing someone like you came a long and corrected it, not only here but on Commons as well. Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be missing in the process is a check that the coords on the image match the coords in the listing...? Aegoceras (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is something that to a degree should be done when tagging the images, but a lot of images do not have locations and if they do it might be camera locations which could be a few hundred meters off as well. But it might be a good idea to have a bot run checking for obvious errors from time to time. Agathoclea (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would best be taken care of when adding the template to the image on Commons, which is usually done manually, so the blame would fall on individual editors at that point rather than any code being used to add the images. The script that we use assumes that the editors on Commons have identified the images correctly before adding them–usually a pretty good assumption–and I think adding in that extra check is a bit much. No semi- or fully-automated process is going to be completely free from error, and as you've shown here, editors with local knowledge are usually quick to point out when something has gone awry.

I do plan on writing up some code later, though, to add templates to commons based on the images already in the lists, so I will try to add in something to check the coordinates if they exist. My argument above kind of goes both ways, though, since we generally trust that the images that have been added here manually were added by editors who knew what they were doing.

Maybe after I write that check into the new code I'm going to write, it will be easily transferable to the code in use now. I would have to give it a little leeway as Agathoclea pointed out–say, a few hundred meters or so–to adjust for camera errors and other minor things like that. I'll see what I can do in that regard later, but I have several other things on my plate at the moment that are a bit more pressing. Thanks for the suggestion!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]