Talk:Google Street View coverage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A few tourist actractions from China are already on Streetview

A few tourist actractions in Beijing are already viewed on streetview. such as [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadiemydog1 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add "Italy" and the Italian flag to Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco

Please add the italian flag to Monte Bianco/Mont Blanc update no. 179 of thursday Jan. 21, 2016. The peak of the Monte Bianco marks exactly the border line between Italy and France, and as you can clearly see with Google Streetview in many point the panoramical view are located in Italian territory. Please correct the post, because it can be a very annoying issue with italian readers. Thanks very much! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.185.102 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. If it's a very annoying issue for Italian readers, I think you can make an account and add information by yourself. It's not a big deal. Thanks. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To add the Italian flag, copy and paste this code. {{flag|Italy}} For other countries, just replace the "Italy" with another country name. Ssbbplayer (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Street View for Mars

The 5 panoramas were made by Curiosity (rover) for Google. Pretty visible that are edited by the Google Team. see: [2] . Please do not delete my edit. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 21:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

- Well Curiosity is clearly visible on the background. However, I'd like an official source from google. As of now, Google Maps' blog doesn't state anything about street view on Mars. The two sources both take me to the Papua province of Indonesia. Juliussasar (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how that static image proves that at all to be honest. I've just removed this pending confirmation from reliable sources - if/when Google does release street view imagery of Mars, it will be reported in the media. At present, it looks rather odd for these images to be appearing as a photosphere in one of the most remote places in the world (and not on Google Mars). Googling the topic doesn't provide any reliable sources, but does return some examples of home-made street view-type images: [3] Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coverage of Google Street View. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110308061212/http://www.googleartproject.com:80/c/faq to http://www.googleartproject.com/c/faq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

edit request

Feb 2016 for Uruguay. "Florida" wikification needs to be changed to "Florida Department" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.139.222 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

Please change this line, because it does not mention Italy in it, while Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco is in Italy as well, the borderline is set at the top of the mountain. As you can see in the map, the covered path does actually crosses the borders between Italy and France many times. The line to correct is:

| 179 || style="background:#f0f8ff;"| Thursday, January 21, 2016 || style="background:#fff;" | Mont Blanc in France

Just add the Italian flag and the name of the country, nothing more. Thank you! :)

Tommolo (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source provided (blogspot page) is not considered reliable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

On the Wikipedia Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco page, the issue of the property of the peak is discussed, check it out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc (see "ownersip of the Summit") . The controversial status, should suggest to add Italy as a co-owner of the Monte Bianco mountain, or at least to remove the french flag. On this article of the Indipendent, they talk about the issue of the franco/italian borders: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/mont-blanc-controversy-french-suffer-a-fit-of-pique-as-italys-prime-minister-reclaims-europes-10351349.html . Wikipedia and the Indipendent are amongst the many reliable sources I can mention. As you can see, it's a very delicate question, but beside the ownership of the peak, the fact is that Monte Bianco/Mont Blanc is divided between Italy and France, and it should be mentioned. My suggestion is to keep a "both or none" approach, you can mention the controversial status or simply not mention any country. Borders are not made for mountains :) Best regards and thank you, sorry for bothering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.189.241 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As a further support, I can mention that in all wikipedia pages about Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco, the co-ownership of Italy and France is always mentioned, for instance check out the spanish page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc , the german page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc , the french page too declares the Mont Blanc/Monte Bianco is both french and italian, and both flags are well visible on the headline of the french wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.139.100 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello? Is there anybody out there? Can you please explain me why there's still no answer to my question? I'm not going to give up, Monte Bianco is Italy too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.255.251 (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Added both icons and a disputed notice --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Senegal is missing

Senegal is listed on Google street view's site as being captured, but Senegal is not under the section future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Senegal has been photographed last year. It is missing due to the fact that now Google reports only where cars are really taking pictures. Since 2016 Google doesn't list countries where cars are not driving at the moment. The absence of Senegal from the Google's list doesn't mean Senegal will not have Street View (aside privacy and/or security concerns, about which I don't be aware of at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabri88 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting Staszek Lem deletions

I reverted the deletions that Staszek Lem made. These were drastic and done without any apparent discussion, and I missed the content, so I reverted. MesoCS (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Per wikipedia policies, unreferenced information may be deleted at any time. The article is tagged since December. Please explain how exactly you can rely on the content one cannot verify. Please don't restore information without references. This is a violation of basic wikipedia policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to get all legalistic here. This table seems to be a summary of all the changes in the first part of the article - it is not really independent information, just a compilation of information from earlier in the article--though the date of the oldest imagery is trickier. I should add that I was thanked for reverting the change. I am going to revert again and remove the tags. What would be more constructive would be to try to supply references that you think are missing rather than just doing wholesale deletions. I just added one citation and found older imagery than was listed. I don't have time to work on this but at least I'm adding something.MesoCS (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason to be legalistis. The tables contain lots of various information which is impossible to verify. I am giving you one week to fix it. After that everything unreferenced is gone. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like some other users to add their opinions on this issue. I think this threat to delete everything unreferenced in a week is uncalled for. If other users think Staszek Lem is justified, then fine. If not, then deletions should not be allowed. Also - I was interested in starting to add references, but I'm questioning whether it is worth the effort, since Staszek Lem is liable to delete anything not meeting with this person's approval, and I really don't have time to devote myself to chasing references. The only reason I care is that this page has a lot of useful information that I refer to frequently, and I want to keep this page as useful as possible. Staszek Lem - I invite you to be constructive and start looking up and adding references yourself. If you don't like unreferenced material, please find references, don't just go making threats and deleting things. As I said, I invite others to weigh in on this matter and I will respect the consensus.MesoCS (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant is if I see you are working on it in good faith, then of course I will not delete stuff. Otherwise, if it will continue sitting unattended, I will resume deleting. It looks like you don't understand that wikipedia policy about verifiablity of information is non-negotiable regardless how many people chirp in against it. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

There has been updated imagery to selected areas in New Zealand, including large areas of the main city, Auckland. This occurred on 12th Feb 2016.

Jo chambers (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Update #184 (2016) Thursday Feb 25th, should also include Auckland, New Zealand: "Updated scenery for Auckland, New Zealand". These now including images dated from Nov. 2015, plus new areas of Auckland (Including Mt Victoria and North Head) that were previously missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.95.128 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, photosheres only and which continent

Puerto Rico is now listed as having landmark coverage. But it has only photosheres. A lot of countries have photosheres without being listed for having Streetview coverage. And Puerto Rico is not listed in Google Street View in North America or Google Street View in the United States. And furthermore there seems to be an edit war on which continent Puerto Rico belongs to. The first issue might solve thae last one.--BIL (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible update on this week

Google Street View may have new update this week. 179.223.41.172 (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Locations that can be added

• Dakar and more locations, in Senegal
• More locations in Mongolia
• More locations in South Korea
• More locations in Argentina

Edit war

There is an edit war involving myself and Eugen Simion 14. We need a solution. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes: please stop edit warring. You will be blocked if this edit warring continues. Continuing to edit war while asking for "a solution" here is terrible behaviour. Regarding the stuff you're edit warring in, Scotland is not an independent country or separate territory. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Scotland IS a country, and is similar to, say Aruba, from the Netherlands. As Aruba is in this article, Scotland should be too. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is involved. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Street View

An edit war happened on the article between me and others, because we couldn't agree whether Scotland counted as a country or not. Please can this issue be resolved now? Pablothepenguin (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See above Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not helpful. I need a proper discussion on this matter, and this is how I will achieve that by posting here on the talk page. Please can we actually discuss the issue at hand? Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As an exercise in precision, can we clarify that you edit-warred; others merely restored a consensus based on reliable sources. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi}

What "reliable sources" are you referring to, last time I checked, I don't remember such sources being in existence, neither are they declared at the bottom of the page, hence your argument is a bit confusing to me. Pablothepenguin (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It's worth posting a reminder here of the rationale you gave for your edit warring: Edits to Street View article are to preserve national identity and to respect my wishes. This seems to be either bad faith editing, or an eccentric quest to prove that Scotland is an independent country despite what happened when there was a vote held on the issue. Either way, it's a waste of time. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand, but your info above has led me to ask two questions to you?

1. About the independence thing, we're still working on it, there are a lot of people who have been mislead into voting No, by Westminster MPs. At the time of writing, we are coming up to an important election. The SNP say that they are going to try and swing people towards independence, and if support is high enough, another referendum will be looked into. Do you understand this info?
2. If Aruba (Yes, that Aruba!), part of the Netherlands is allowed on the article, then why can't Scotland be allowed as well? Clearly not all entities listed there are independent. Please explain? Pablothepenguin (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please answer my two questions!? Pablothepenguin (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I've been (slightly) canvassed onto this topic. Scotland is physically connected to the other members (barring NI) of the UK, while Aruba is thousands of miles away from the Netherlands. When I say "Street View is in the UK" that should clearly include Scotland, but "Street View is in the Netherlands" does not make me think about Aruba (hell, until just now I didn't even know it was a constituent country of The Netherlands). Primefac (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Request For Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that Scotland should be on the list of countries in this article. I have had my edits reverted several times pertaining to this. I need help. Pablothepenguin (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this addition, per my rationale in the section immediately above this one. Additionally, I note that the nominator has yet to give any specific reasons why it should be added. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be added to recognise Scotland's achievements and the fact that it is a separate national identity. I believe that Scotland needs to have more recognition on this Wiki and I am disappointed that it is not relevant most of the time. I would be very happy if Scotland was a little more obvious. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. "To recognize Scotland's achievements" and "Scotland should be more obvious". Absolutely nonsensical rationales. This is a pointless RFC initiated by a clueless editor who won't take no for an answer. Someone should just close this.--Atlan (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In what way am I "clueless"? How are my rationale nonsensical? I believe that Scotland should be treated like any other country. Pablothepenguin (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, the issue is that Scotland isn't like many other countries. I assume you've posed this RFC in order to determine if it is like the other countries, or if its special status makes it exempt from being specifically mentioned on this list. Primefac (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• The UK's constituent countries are different from those of the Kingdom of the Netherlands: Aruba was added to Google Street View separately from the Netherlands, several years later; it's in a different continent; it also has a separate ISO code unlike the countries of the UK, which means it's listed in List of countries and dependencies by population. Peter James (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Anyone wanting to know the constituent elements of 'UK' need only click on the link. This is a pointless RfC, without rationale, asking us to push a PoV. Pincrete (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Scotland is Britain. I should know, as I was born there. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Scotland is not "Britain" you know. How wrong can you possibly get? Pablothepenguin (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pablothepenguin, please remember to be CIVIL. Scotland (at this exact point in time) is part of Britain, regardless of how much you or others want it to be a completely separate country. Further insults and personal attacks could result in admin action (and will definitely put a shutter on this conversation). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pablothepenguin is back to edit warring on this topic, this time under a deliberately misleading edit summary [4]. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed - Scotland is to the U.K. as Texas is to the U.S. (once an independent nation, but now a component part). The article does not treat Texas as being separate from the rest of the U.S., so why should it treat Scotland as being separate from the rest of the U.K.? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not accurate. Texas has a constitution of its own, and is recognised as a state with certain innate powers. Scotland has no such status, and is self-governed at the will of Westminster, not because of constitutional guarantees. Westminster could strip Scotland of all forms of self-governance as it likes, whereas the American government could not do this to Texas. RGloucester — ☎ 13:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course my analogy goes only so far. I think you missed my point...

Given what you say, there would be even more justification to list Texas separately than there is justification to list Scotland separately. Yet we don't list Texas separately... We lump Texas in with Virginia, Hawaii, Maine, (etc.) as "US". Since we lump the constituent parts of the US together, I have no problem lumping the constituent parts of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does Aland get its own entry on the street view page, then. It isn't independent either. Pablothepenguin (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't get its own entry. We don't list Lapland or Satakunta separately after all. I suspect that we list Åland separately because it is an island, and thus geographically separated from the rest of Finland (as opposed it being politically, ethnically or culturally separated).

Your "it's not fair because other things are listed separately" argument might be more apt if you were saying that we should list the Shetlands or the Channel Islands separately from the rest of the UK, or Tasmania separately from the rest of Australia (because they too are stand alone islands). But it does not hold water in the context of arguing that all of Scotland should be listed separately. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My point was that Scotland has no claim sovereignty, in comparison to an American state, which does have claim to sovereignty, and hence, as you said, if the American states are not listed separately, why would Scotland be? To be honest, though, I find such comparisons rather pointless. The fact remains that Scotland is Britain, and that I'm not sure why we are even entertaining the crusade by Mr Penguin, which seems rooted in anything but reason or evidence. However, I've had my fill of this kind of political nonsense... RGloucester — ☎ 16:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2016

Edited on june 13: Sorry, I give up. I don't know what I did wrong here. How difficult can it be? I simply asked to add the following train stations, thats all. 33 train stations from French railway company SNCF located in Euro 2016 host cities will be available in streetview. More stations will be added in the next months. http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2016/06/09/97002-20160609FILWWW00102-google-et-la-sncf-cartographient-les-gares-de-l-euro-2016.php. The locations already available I found so far: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_de_France_%E2%80%93_Saint-Denis_(Paris_RER), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_du_Nord, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Lyon-Perrache, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Lyon-Part-Dieu and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gare_de_Bordeaux-Saint-Jean Please add Stade de France – Saint-Denis (Paris RER), Gare du Nord Paris, Gare de Lyon-Perrache, Gare de Lyon-Part-Dieu and Gare de Bordeaux-Saint-Jean as # 197 to the year 2016 in the Timeline of introductions. These train stations have now indoor streetview. DanielWA.2016 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) DanielWA.2016 (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Future: I just want to point out that Montenegro is now officially listed on the Google site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.174.35 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I do not believe this article should be deleted as it shows each update that Google has made to its Street View program, when each update was introduced, and what places were added to Street View on that day. However, if this article must be deleted, then the table showing the list of introductions should be moved to the page Google Street View#Timeline.

Djodjo666 (talk)

12:35, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

"Castles of Serbia and more locations in"

Where is it? I didn't see this places on Street View. Please don't propagate fake updates...

Germany

Today (Friday, August 12, 2016), a statement was added that there are "more locations in Germany". That suprises me. What locations are we talking about? The statement needs a citation or should be more specific. If that cannot be provided, it should be removed. Taxodermist (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed - EugεnS¡m¡on 15:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Senegal and Southeastern Turkey

Why those lands are listed as covered by Google Street View when actually there isn't any service yet? Please stop speculations about Senegal's Street View: list it only when it will actually uploaded! Then as it should be done, re-list Senegal in the future's chart. 14 July 2016 12:24 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.255.77 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Google today gave him permission to go to Costa Rica officially , they can now move to Countries and regions listed on Google 's site or officially Announced Source : Patricio molina54 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Public street view for Madagascar

Public street view for Madagascar are available even of for only some streets. User:Compain Here [5] (probably a sockpuppet for User:Diretor Adobe) [6] edits are bad and unconstructive. Please modify the table. 2A02:2F0B:B040:144B:DE:E969:E824:73F5 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Tunis in Street View?? What's a bullshit!

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.10.209.21 (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

same guy who for some reason thinks it is and keeps adding it and it kepps getting taken off--77.97.97.21 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tunis is currently not available in Street View, but will be added soon. Compain Here (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Google's website, Tunis and other locations in Tunisia has been filmed and will most likely be released soon. Danisian (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But NOW they are not yet available, so why introduce people astray?78.10.209.42 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on scope of Timeline table

I have had to undo the same edit twice listing Tunisia as one of the countries covered by Google Street View imagery. I have two points to make about this:

1. The timeline table seems like it should list only official Google-created imagery -- i.e., the countries and cities listed on https://www.google.com/streetview/understand/ . User-uploaded photo spheres (which are available in some Tunisian cities) are types of imagery available on Google Maps, yes, but are not part of Google Street View. Google's website makes this distinction clear. To include every photo sphere uploaded by non-Google parties would take away the value of the article and the timeline.
2. When the same user edits the country into the timeline, it keeps listing the day they are editing the article. In this case, September 19 came up as the date when Google supposedly introduced Tunisia imagery, which is simply untrue. Even if the editor's intention was to represent when a user-contributed photo sphere was uploaded, the dates still wouldn't match.

I'd love to see Street View in Tunisia, Senegal, and other countries as much as the most enthusiastic Google Maps followers, but simply listing their appearance on this page won't make those dreams come true. TheAckademie (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Actually, Street View was filmed in Dakar, Senegal a long time ago, but hasn't been released yet for some reason. A lot of cities in Tunisia was also recently filmed (I actually saw the cars myself on mutiple occasions), but also has not been released yet. Danisian (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Bangladesh has been filmed in 2013 and also could not be released the following year for the same reason, only in 2015 that Google Street View was launched in Bangladesh, perhaps only in 2017 Google Street View is launched in Senegal, as well as Bangladesh. Compain Here (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lagos is Nigeria, not in Niger

I have listed Niger as official because I thought that Lagos was in Niger actually Lagos is Nigeria, Thanks for the correction, Ssbbplayer. Compain Here (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I've opened investigation about users Sjnester, Diretor Adobe, Compain Here and Danisian, who make disruptive edits on this article. You can participate in discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjnester. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Good work: an analysis of their interaction is rather interesting too. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that not all their edits were reverted, so there may be wrong information still left. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Palestine covered?

User:Triggerhippie4 is removing Palestine from the coverage list. Google Street View is available in East Jerusalem, which is a part of the West Bank, which is a part of the State of Palestine. Therefore, I'd argure that Palestine is indeed covered. But User:Triggerhippie4 keeps removing it from the list, with reasons such as "troll", " Eastern Jerusalem is not covered" and " it's not true. there's no sources, and i just checked myself in google maps"

Here are some sources: Danisian (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Palestine is still in the coverage list. There is coverage of parts of Palestine as you say e.g. Al-Ram (listed in the timeline section), or highway 90 across the West Bank, and of course parts of East Jerusalem. The problem is that the whole of Jerusalem is referred to as being in Israel using Wikipedia neutral narrative voice, which is a policy violation e.g. see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem for an attempt to address this centrally. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It's still in the coverage list because i re-added it (see history, it was removed many times by User:Triggerhippie4). I also added Template:Dispute inline. I didn't know about the Jerusalem resolution, but as you say, there are still a lot places in the West Bank that is covered (such as Route 90). Therefore, I definitely think Palestine belongs on the list (and find it unbeliveable that it is even disputed, unless you don't recognize Palestine at all). Danisian (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking right now in Google Maps at all the places mentioned, and none of those has Street View. The source you provided is a 4-years-old article that speculates on whether Street View would be available in the settlements one day or not, and it isn't which is easy to check. Jerusalem borders and who controls it has nothing to do with it, as Street View isn't available anywhere outside of the Green Line. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to explain that. Where do you live, North Korea? I can use street view in many locations across the green line. The coverage of East Jerusalem is pretty extensive and the whole of highway 90 across the West Bank is covered together with a ~7km extension along highway 1 from highway 90. What do you see via these links [7][8]Sean.hoyland - talk 10:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I see Street View after clicking on your links, but when I try to access it again from Google Maps it doesn't work, strangely. I'm in Russia. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see the following screenshots, taken on the Russian Google Maps: [9][10]Danisian (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Article fully protected for one week

Could we have some discussion here re: the Palestine issue please? I hate to think what will happen if in a week's time the protection is lifted and the edit-war recommences. Cheers! Let's doooooo it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is basically one guy who argues that Palestine shouldn't be on there. Can you just go on Google Maps and check please? Danisian (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Does adding and removing Palestine is covered under WP:ARBPIA?--Shrike (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that is for the Arab-Israeli conflict (admittedly "broadly construed") rather than a matter of simple geography; pinging RolandR for his opinion, though. Stand by. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, since I Am Not An Administrator, this is only a personal opinion; but I would have thought that simply adding, just once, the term "Palestine" to this article would not be covered under WP:ARBPIA,but repeatedly removing and re-adding it is. The first time would be simply a factual geographical matter (possibly mistaken, but not sanctionable); but anything beyond that, in the absence of discussion and consensus, becomes a matter of political contention and thus covered by discretionary sanctions. On the factual background, as noted above, Street View does cover occupied East Jerusalem, including areas not annexed by Israel, as well as the entire Highway 90 through the Jordan Valley. Since the entire question of whether Palestine exists at all, whether or not there is a State of Palestine, and what its borders are, is the heart of the conflict - and the very issue which the arbitration and discretionary sanctions were intended to settle - it seems unarguable to me that edit-warring over this would be considered sanctionable under the ruling. RolandR (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

2017

So, does anyone know if there is anything for 2017 yet? Rubberduck23 (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of oldest imagery

Date of oldest imagery for Ghana is 2016-02
Date of oldest imagery for Puerto Rico is 2016-01
Date of oldest imagery for Senegal is 2015-05
177.183.24.42 (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date in the Netherlands.

I have found new images thats been taken on August 2016. Heres the link https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0194146,6.1293924,3a,75y,153.39h,91.56t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sHxyEIYhXoOzfyKDHWfYn1A!2e0!5s20160801T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DHxyEIYhXoOzfyKDHWfYn1A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D208.79791%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656 Motorvagenludvika (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tuesdsay

Tuesdsay, February 28, 2017 should be corrected. ;) 91.221.59.23 (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Date of oldest imagery missing

Please add date of oldest imagery for Ghana (2016-02), Puerto Rico (2016-01), Senegal (2015-07) and Tunisia (2016-07). 177.183.25.115 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)