Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Aerial photography

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Aerial photography

Wikipedia:Aerial photography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC) @Avicennasis: Completing the relisting by adding a fresh timestamp for the bot.

This is an odd page. It contains lots of quality, detailed guidance but it's unclear whether it belongs in WP space, or if it does what as. It's not categorised as guidance, an essay or help. Help seems closest but it seems too narrow to make a good help page. We don’t have any help on e.g. taking good outdoors photos, which this is part of (and which some of the advice applies to).

Besides it needs updating. Today if you want to take aerial photos you don't need to be a pilot with a plane (or know one). You just need to spend a few hundred dollars on a drone. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Keep the advice that is here is OK for what it is. WP space is the correct place for this, but perhaps it could also be on commons. I have uploaded quite a few aerial photos myself over the years, but I was never aware of this page. Update seems a much better idea than deletion. Perhaps I can add a section on removing haze. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • so how should it be categorised? – I mean both literally as in which category/categories and what it should call itself with a banner (though that usually also categorises it). I did think of Commons myself but spend almost no time on there so am completely unfamiliar with what sort of guidelines are available there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I'm rather startled that anyone imagines the page not to be useful, and that it might be a part of outdoor photography. In an airliner or small plane, the constraints on getting a good photo are quite different from any other popular form of photography. The closest correlation would be photos from a vehicle moving on roads, but there are a great many differences due to plastic vs. glass windows, distance and haze. I don't understand the intricacies of wiki categorization (help, etc.) but do hope that this informative page is retained for the benefit of the many people who reference it.

  Photography from a drone is radically different, although the shutter speed and haze issues do apply. Few drones have cameras with manual settings, and most are extreme wide angle which brings in very different problems. If there isn't a page on drone photography, creating one would be an excellent idea. I've done a few airline photos, many small plane photos, and some drone photos & video, and find the latter to be quite different and well worth a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw4nvc (talk • contribs) 05:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I've reverted the NAC closure of this MFD by an IP. DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Delete (or userfy, or move somewhere more appropriate). WP:NOTMANUAL. DexDor ^(talk) 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, it would make sense for this page to be at a similar location to the page about how to take pictures - i.e. at Commons. No objection to a soft redirect being left here on the English-language Wikipedia. DexDor ^(talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The Wikipedia namespace is the appropriate one for guides on creating and improving images. I think WP:NOTMANUAL applies to article namespace, not Wikipedia namespace. Indeed from policies to guidelines on down, the Wikipedia namespace is one big extended manual for editing the Wikipedia site. We have other pages with helpful images advice, such as Wikipedia:How to improve image quality, Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Creating shaded relief (GRASS, 3DEM) and Wikipedia:Photograph your hometown. This particular page seems a useful guide. It could be upddated with drone info--but do we really want more drones in our lives? --Mark viking (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why split info like this between Wikipedia and Commons (e.g. Commons:How to take pictures for Wikimedia Commons)? DexDor ^(talk) 07:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy, per DexDor. Or maybe merge into a help page or a WikiProject page. Rehman 12:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Avic_ennasis @ 10:31, 5 Tevet 5777 / 10:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• @DexDor: @Graeme Bartlett: @Graham87: @JohnBlackburne: @Jw4nv: @Mark viking: @Rehman: Courtesy ping.

@Avicennasis: I have no strong opinions on the fate of this page. However, your ping didn't work, because it wasn't accompanied by a signature. Let me redo it, excluding myself: @DexDor: @Graeme Bartlett: @JohnBlackburne: @Jw4nv: @Mark viking: @Rehman:. Graham87 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the voters will probably bring more of the same arguments, but I will rebut the votes of DexDor and Rehman as NOTMANUAL applies to articles. However I do agree with DexDor that it may as well be on commons. Transwiki is possible. If commons doesn't want it then we can keeplocal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.