Talk:Shepard Company Building

Images

#1

#2

The picture that was in the info box (#1) is a perfectly good photo, well composed and clear, but it only shows one entrance to the building which is the subject of this article, and the sidewalk clock outside it. One cannot see any real amount of the building's architecure, including the arched entrances at either end. For this reason I thought an image that was more inclusive of the building's entirety would be better. I looked through the Commons category, and the best image there that fulfilled that requirement is #2, which I put into the infobox, moving #1 to the body of the article. (#2 is the same image used in the WikiData infobox.)

Filetime, an editor who has WP:OWNERSHIP issues regarding images in Providence-related articles, reverted my change, putting #1 back and deleting #2 entirely. Their edit summary for this says: "Photographs 400 pixels wide are unacceptable when higher resolution alternatives exist." There are a number of things wrong with this statement:

• {1) The image in question is actually 600 529 pixels wide and not 400 as stated;
• (2) There are no other images which show as much of the building as this one does, regardless of their resolution;
• (3) A 529 600 pixel image is perfectly fine for use in an infobox. Most people don't click through the infobox image, and if they do, what they'll see is a perfectly reasonable image:

Image #2 at its full size, showing that its resolution is more than sufficient; resolution is not the be-all and end-all of images, its function also needs to be considered

An infobox image should give the reader a good sense of what the subject of the article looks like, that's it's entire purpose. Image #1 gives a very good sense of what that particular entrance and the clock look like, but does not come close to presenting the gestalt of the building, as #2 does. For these reasons, I have reverted Filetime and restored #2 to the infobox, with #1 in the body. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The original version of #2 before I cropped it. Note the intrusive vertical eements at either side of the image.

After I posted the above, I cropped image #2 to remove some visually intrusive elements at the sides (see right), in order to allow the viewer to focus on the building itself. I've altered the comment above to represent the cropped image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: This image is 145 KB, barely larger than a thumbnail. Please stop replacing high quality images with ones that are less than 2 MB, it is disruptive and degrades the quality of the articles you edit. According to MoS, editors should use the "best quality images available." Filetime (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Following Filetime's diktat, I have replaced the original infobox image, which is 3,000 x 2,000 at 2.25 MB, with the highest resolution image in the Commons category, which is 3,840 x 4,108 at 3.16 MB. If Filetime reverts, everyone reading this will understand that his argument is specious, and the only issue here is that Filetime wishe to maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and control what images are in it. At that point, if he does revert to his preferred version, he will be reported to admins for WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Ownership. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Filetime reverted, and I have made an admin aware of this situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Did you not violate policy when you yourself reverted multiple times? Please stop adding low quality images to articles it is exhausting to have to clean up this mess. Furthermore, it is not a matter of WP:Ownership to ask that you stop shoehorning your own photographs into articles. Please see this talk page where a seasoned photographer stated that "without a doubt," the images that you added to the article were of poorer quality than those that were there prior. Filetime (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Might I add that in every single one of these discussions (1, 2, 3), community consensus has determined that your images are of poorer quality than the suggested alternatives? Does this pattern not register with you?Filetime (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Please, the both of you, settle down. Both images have their detractions. I do not think Filetime's is appropriate, just as silly as illustrating the Statue of Liberty with an image of her torch or toe. Likewise the low-res image is less than ideal. Might I instead suggest two preferable alternatives? ɱ (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Might I also note that file size is not too important a criterion alone, as we include innumerous non-free files across countless articles all with a much smaller file size than the one BMK supports above. ɱ (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ɱ, I have uploaded both of the Flickr images you suggested to Commons and have used one of them in the infobox, again keeping the original infobox image in the body of the article. I've also added a gallery which highlights some parts of the building: a decorative column, the new clock, and one of the arched entrances, as well as the overall image of the building.

The larger issue here is that I'm working on cleaning and updating articles about Providence buildings, and Filetime is reverting many of those edits. Having objections to certain changes is certainly defensible, but when one objects to practically every change being made, that's an WP:OWNERSHIP problem, and that creates an untenable situation. It's not going to stop me from improving articles - I haven't survived here for almost 16 years with almost 300K edits by allowing a single intransigent editor stopping me from making improvements. I've tried -- and will continue to try -- to be cooperative, but that's very difficult with an editor hovering defensively over the images in an entire topic. That's what needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I will happily stop objecting to changes when you stop shoehorning low quality images (consistently overexposed, low resolution, blurry, poorly composed, etc) in articles related to Rhode Island. Filetime (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem is you want the be the arbiter of what is "low quality" and what is not, instead of letting the community decide = and your decisions are clearly related to whether I've taken the images or have selected them. Your rejection of the previous image is proof positive of that. Your judgment is far from impartial.

Stop pinging me please, I am obviously aware of this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And pay attention to what Ɱ says above: "[F]ile size is not too important a criterion alone, as we include innumerous non-free files across countless articles all with a much smaller file size". This is one of the things I've been saying to you through the three disputes you've had with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Non-free files are lower in quality out of a necessity to protect the encyclopedia from aiding in copyright infringement. When editing an article with a subject so often photographed as this one, there is genuinely no need to resort to any image under 2 MB. As for my judgement being subjective, I again direct you to this talk page where an independent user confirms that the three images I offered are "without a doubt" of higher quality than those offered by you. It is not personal to ask that images are not blurry (see this image), overexposed (see this image), or poorly composed (see this image). These are independent criteria that can and repeatedly have been used by independent editors to evaluate these images, from which they have repeatedly reached the same conclusions (1, 2, 3). Filetime (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked you not to ping me, and you immediately did, testament to your poor judgement, which you have also shown in this dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Filetime, although I don't typically side with BMK on issues, it's clear here that your judgement of an image's quality may not always be accurate, and in a dispute, you need to take it to a talk page like BMK has done here, and allow for a group consensus. That's how we operate on Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Image size (pixel width and height) is IMHO not a determinant of image relevance, unless it is smaller than what is typically presented in the infobox. Considering these are typically 250px, an image of 400px is perfectly fine. Someone looking for more detail or more resolution is going to be trawling in the Commons category for the structure anyway. More important are things like composition and sharpness, and whether or not the photo transmits well why the building is important. If it is for architecture, one should have a decent view of it. If this building is architecturally significant (which it appears to be, in addition to its historic uses), I would expect the lead image to present most of at least the main facade(s) of the building, and some indication of its massing. (I've taken lots of photos, both good and bad, of buildings of various sizes and shapes.) Magic♪piano 17:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)