User talk:Steenbuck

Hi, I rolled back your change as it appears to be a mistake. The image is used by both English and Portuguese pages, so it should also be listed in the data item. If it shouldn't be there, please leave a comment here (use the {{ping|yurik}} to ping me). Thx! --Yurik (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yurik: Hi Yuri, a map of Brazil states by GDP is purely illustrative and has nothing to do with GEOCODIGO itself.

IMHO identifier can't have a valid image at all.--Steenbuck (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steenbuck: do you think Portuguese and English IBGE:GEOCODIGO pages remove that image too? Also, if the boundaries in the image correspond to IBGE codes, we might as well keep them, because they are close enough representation of the subject. Without it, it will be a blank picture, which obviously provides less information. CC: @Jgpacker: (who added that image initially). I'm ok to remove it everywhere, as I am not a subject matter expert. --Yurik (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yurik: Dear Yurik, please think – even without being a subject-matter expert –

• What type of key is IBGE:GEOCODIGO?
• What shows the map? (and please note: it's from 2006!)
• Which meaning has the map to the key?
• How would you illustrate abstract concepts in a sensible manner?

--Steenbuck (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

And GEOCODIGO is also for "Cidades, distritos e subdistritos" (cities, district and subdistricts). So a random map of the Brazil states is not a close representation.--Steenbuck (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steenbuck:, as I said - I am ok to remove it, but it should be consistent with the wiki pages. It doesn't make any sense for the wiki pages to have the image, and the data item (which is essentially a copy of the wiki page) to not have it. So if you want to remove it, fine, but please remove it from both of the wiki pages too. Thx! --Yurik (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. As for the image itself, having a generic map of Brazil as an image highlights the fact that this key is specific to Brazil as a whole, and shouldn't be used for other area. It doesn't have to have a perfect representation of an "ID" concept, but it should give at least some helpful information. If more than one Brazil-specific keys share the same image, it also helps users, because seeing it tells them which country it is specific to. No image means that for every key users will be forced to read the text (which is both good and bad - more specific information, but slower and people might ignore it quicker). That's why i think even generic map images are helpful. --Yurik (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yurik: Ok, here we have our main conflict: You think generic map images are helpful, I think that they are even detrimental.

As you have invented the OSM "Wikidata" system I thought that you would be more an 'ontology' guy trying to perfectly classify the whole tag system, but now I see that you only want to replicate the tag pages, even if they are (obviously) imperfect.--Steenbuck (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me ping another Wiki user (of my faction) @N.plath: for his opinion.--Steenbuck (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I'm OK for you to remove the images in both places (wiki pages and data items). I am hoping that very soon we will remove all values inside the {{KeyDescription}} templates, so that templates will automatically pull their data from the data items (they already do that if you leave out the params). The data items will become the only data store for the summary information. As for the to have or not to have the image - the goal of data items is to be a convenient method to store data, useful to readers of the wiki, users of the iD/JOSM/... editors, and consumers of the data. Data items are not there to fulfill some universal greatness in of itself, or to have a perfect ontology, or any other abstract but not very useful theoretical concept. Practicality and usefulness are the only goals :) --Yurik (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)