Talk:Building at 400 East Third Street

Comments removed from article space

 * 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)


 * 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)BTW, I am finding only mirrors of NPS listing pages and the like, when search for (including the quotation marks): "Building at 400 East Third Street" -wikipedia.  Nor is it mentioned in the 1985 NPS study of Casa Grande historic resources. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)