I wish you did... More seriously, you can indicate the other images you've noticed. I guess that cement plants can be located on a map, and we could try to geotag those images. --Myrabella (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've geocoded both of them. Info: those two sites belongs to the same group, HeidelbergCement (4th largest cement producerin the world), Norcem being a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement. The second alternative image shows a cement terminal. A cement plant would be preferable IMO, thus here is a Norcem cement plant, now geocoded and better categorized. Could you please open a MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tu penses bien que j'ai lu l'article ! Il ne semble pas exclu qu'il faille aussi de l'eau pour le "dry process"...;)--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Au point de rendre indispensable la présence visuelle de l'eau dans la photo? Is it so important that we need to see water in the image? --Myrabella (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me watter is not problem, what bothers me most is : its so empty, it should be factory, site of working, moving, noise, dust, smoke, so i really miss some trucks un/loading and people there. Now its looks scarry, wouldnt mind scope "Abandoned". --Mile (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there isn't much activity in that alternative image you've pointed out, is it? :-) Concerning the nominated picture, I admit that mid-August might not be the best period to shoot this plant. --Myrabella (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Composition is better, more full, and railway suggets there migth be someone alive around. Trully all are very lonelynees, miss lively scene. --Mile (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
