Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/CTA tracks
- Reason
- This is a high EV image. I would love to nominate this at FPC, but DOF issues abound.
- Articles this image appears in
- Transportation planning
Urban planning
Chicago metropolitan area
Rail transport - Creator
- Daniel Schwen (User:Dschwen)
- Support as nominator --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
SupportIs a good quality image and a very nice illustration of Rail transport in Chicago i.e. high educational value for Rail transport and Chicago metropolitan area. However its use in Transportation planning and Urban planning I found completely inappropriate and therefore removed from those articles (as others did before). Please note that sometimes a distracting image is worse than no image. --Elekhh (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Withdraw support in compensation of the nominator's support which IMO, based on the comments below, is unreliable in assessing the educational value of the image. --Elekhh (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The right hand WP:GANG is starting to get annoying and illogical.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- WTF. Why would you remove this image from Transportation planning and Urban planning and then say you did so as others before when this is not the case. This is the quintessential image for the transportation planning article article. Read its first sentence which says "Transportation planning is a field involved with the evaluation, assessment, design and siting of transportation facilities (generally streets, highways, footpaths, bike lanes and public transport lines)." Placing elevated train tracks in an urban setting is very much a transportation planning issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here the revert prior to mine Tony, and please consider the meaning of the word "planning". It is about designing the future, and is done with the tools of drawings and maps (i.e. plans). An image of an existing piece of infrastructure is not an illustration of planning (i.e.evaluation, assessment, design or siting). It is the result of a planning process, as any major infrastructure is. The article does not mention anywhere the Chicago Loop as an outstanding example of planning outcome, therefore its use in the article is aleatory at best. --Elekhh (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you pointing to an edit about a different image? This image was to replace that one. If I am understanding your point it is that planning is about the future and once the intriguing plannned structures have been built we should remove them from the articles. Is that correct? IMO, no need to go beyond the article we are in where the first sentence includes the "siting of transportation facitilities." The picture is one of the more interesting sitings we have on commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Technically the two images are different, but they depict the same subject -a detail view of the Chicago Loop- which in the broad context of transportation planning, througout human history and around the globe, makes them very similar. Planning is a process, and these images do not illustrate that process in any way. Siting is the process of selecting a location (site). This process is not illustrated by these images either. --Elekhh (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- These are two entirely different compositions. The other shows an intersection and control tower as the main subject. Here the main subject is the elevated track versus ground level transportation, which is a major siting decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- oohwww, I thought I'm entitled to my oppinion but you seem to know far better, so you reintroduced it in the article again. Anyway, this is getting very tiresome, and is not the place to discuss this. Regarding VP: IMO while it IS a valuable picture for illustrating Rail transport in Chicago, it's educational value for the two main planning articles is close to zero. --Elekhh (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Using a map as the main image of transportation planning is about as logical as having a blueprint as the main image at architecture. This is an example of transportation planning, i.e., an example of how transportation facilities might be sited in an urban context. Much like one might choose an interesting building for main images in architecture and various types of architecture articles an example of planning is a good illustration for a planning article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any response to this point. I.E., what is an example of transportation planning?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really wanted to close this discussion. I am not running away from debate, yet I am not convinced that this is constructive. I do not get the impression that you would be listening to what I say, and your repeated attempts to ridicule me are not preceived as constructive either. I did not suggest anything like using a blueprint to illustrate architecture, nor that "intriguing plannned structures that have been built should be removed from articles". IMO the image is not an illustration of planning, but of planning outcome, however there is no reference in the article to demonstrate that the Chicago Loop is notable in the history of planning. It is a good image, but not a universal image. I wouldn't use it as a lead image in any planning article just as I wouldn't use it in Finance or Steel as it is only marginaly related. Transport planning looks like this or this. That is not to say that notable transport planning outcomes are not good illustrations, but they need to be illustrating the article. I couldn't find any good illustration for planning yet, but my view is, as stated before, that is better to have no illustration than one which is only distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I could be spending my time cleaning up articles or uploading useful images, but instead I am caught in some sort of gamesmanship where Transport planning outcomes are considered irrelevant to Transport planning because of an absence of a reference in the article to demonstrate that the Chicago Loop is notable in the history of planning. Chicago is one of the most important cities in the world and its planning outcomes need not be referenced for the image to be notable. A good caption could establish relevance. Optimally, yes referencing the image would be great. It is not so essential in all practicality. Yes plan designs are relevant, but the reader can also learn be seeing the outcomes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really wanted to close this discussion. I am not running away from debate, yet I am not convinced that this is constructive. I do not get the impression that you would be listening to what I say, and your repeated attempts to ridicule me are not preceived as constructive either. I did not suggest anything like using a blueprint to illustrate architecture, nor that "intriguing plannned structures that have been built should be removed from articles". IMO the image is not an illustration of planning, but of planning outcome, however there is no reference in the article to demonstrate that the Chicago Loop is notable in the history of planning. It is a good image, but not a universal image. I wouldn't use it as a lead image in any planning article just as I wouldn't use it in Finance or Steel as it is only marginaly related. Transport planning looks like this or this. That is not to say that notable transport planning outcomes are not good illustrations, but they need to be illustrating the article. I couldn't find any good illustration for planning yet, but my view is, as stated before, that is better to have no illustration than one which is only distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any response to this point. I.E., what is an example of transportation planning?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Using a map as the main image of transportation planning is about as logical as having a blueprint as the main image at architecture. This is an example of transportation planning, i.e., an example of how transportation facilities might be sited in an urban context. Much like one might choose an interesting building for main images in architecture and various types of architecture articles an example of planning is a good illustration for a planning article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- oohwww, I thought I'm entitled to my oppinion but you seem to know far better, so you reintroduced it in the article again. Anyway, this is getting very tiresome, and is not the place to discuss this. Regarding VP: IMO while it IS a valuable picture for illustrating Rail transport in Chicago, it's educational value for the two main planning articles is close to zero. --Elekhh (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- These are two entirely different compositions. The other shows an intersection and control tower as the main subject. Here the main subject is the elevated track versus ground level transportation, which is a major siting decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Technically the two images are different, but they depict the same subject -a detail view of the Chicago Loop- which in the broad context of transportation planning, througout human history and around the globe, makes them very similar. Planning is a process, and these images do not illustrate that process in any way. Siting is the process of selecting a location (site). This process is not illustrated by these images either. --Elekhh (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you pointing to an edit about a different image? This image was to replace that one. If I am understanding your point it is that planning is about the future and once the intriguing plannned structures have been built we should remove them from the articles. Is that correct? IMO, no need to go beyond the article we are in where the first sentence includes the "siting of transportation facitilities." The picture is one of the more interesting sitings we have on commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Here the revert prior to mine Tony, and please consider the meaning of the word "planning". It is about designing the future, and is done with the tools of drawings and maps (i.e. plans). An image of an existing piece of infrastructure is not an illustration of planning (i.e.evaluation, assessment, design or siting). It is the result of a planning process, as any major infrastructure is. The article does not mention anywhere the Chicago Loop as an outstanding example of planning outcome, therefore its use in the article is aleatory at best. --Elekhh (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- WTF. Why would you remove this image from Transportation planning and Urban planning and then say you did so as others before when this is not the case. This is the quintessential image for the transportation planning article article. Read its first sentence which says "Transportation planning is a field involved with the evaluation, assessment, design and siting of transportation facilities (generally streets, highways, footpaths, bike lanes and public transport lines)." Placing elevated train tracks in an urban setting is very much a transportation planning issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose On EV grounds, does not provide much EV to any specific article, and to the above tl:dr. — raekyT 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not promoted --Makeemlighter (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)