Talk:Street-level imagery services

Categories

@User:UsefulRabbit: Was it misclicking that you removed the photo category from the article or do you have a reason to share? You don't seem to have a history of grooming categories otherwise. -Bkil (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bkil: Hello! I removed it because it was in Category:Street-level imagery, which is a subcategory of Category:Photos. Removing the parent category of an already-applied subcategory is common on English Wikipedia and other wikis, though if there is consensus to the contrary, I sincerely apologize. UsefulRabbit (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. I've checked just this before asking, but then you missed quite a few others (both here and on other wiki pages that you edit). If this is a more widespread effort that you have just began and you will go through with it, then it's fine with me. Bkil (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Way too many columns added!

@Chris debian: Hey Chris, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but adding dozens of random columns in that way is not helpful. That table was intended to provide at-a-glance review of licensing/usability of street level imagery services for OSM, and not be a concatenation of all possible information about each service (we have a link to each service wiki in name column for that purpose). It was much more usable before those changes.

With dozen new & unrelated columns of huge names (and most of them empty), it now has a long horizontal scrollbar and is unusable even on 1920px wide displays with regular sized fonts! As such, I plan to revert it to the state it was several days ago. (it may be argued that even that last "Link from OSM" column is redundant in that comparison table, but that can be culled later if we need to reduce table width further - for example to replace it with column "note" where some short but extra important info specific for some service might be mentioned -- e.g. "Federation" aspect of Panoramax).

If however some other comparisons unrelated to the core question of "Licensing interactions for OSM" is required, that should probably be in some other table (See e.g. Editor usage stats for example of multiple tables); but only if wikieditor is prepared to collect data for at least substantial majority of services (if not all of them) for those newly added columns. Also, it would preferably firstly be suggested / discussed in talk page to see if people have input how it would be best done (and if it should, of course). --mnalis (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for writing this up in detail. I had the exact same observation. I wanted to wait out to see where the table refactor is going, but it seems it's not progressing. I have special tweaks in SecuChart - interactive secure messenger feature comparison that enables rendering of huge tables even on tiny screens. This is not something that MediaWiki is good at unfortunately. Also, I agree that certain details of each given service has a better place on its own wiki page, or even in wikidata (or an OSM data entry) that might be used for rendering templates later on (or even tables!). Bkil (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chris debian:, I agree with @Mnalis: and @Bkil:, there is too many column, an additional solution could be to have a subpage with all thoses information, for example you can create Street-level_imagery_services/Comparison ! — Koreller (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Although, as mentioned, I subjectively dislike hoarding all such information here, but it can stay as long as it does not hinder usability. I would not oppose to list some optional information about each if it was separated. It wouldn't bother me if it was in another section, possibly either in another table or just normal lists to serve as notes until we can figure out what to do with it. -Bkil (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It has now been restored to previous reasonable table revision, and little missing information re-added. --mnalis (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)