Talk:South Bank Parklands

update

Surely someone has more updated photos of southbank? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulvisionq1

I am heading over to Brisbane in a few days, so I might see if I can get down to South Bank. No promises, but I might be able to get some new pictures. Apart from that, pictures a year old arent that bad, are they?--Ali K 14:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you do get a chance to take some photos, could you please add them to the photo gallery, where they can join the existing photos. Thanks.

The photos on the page are definitely not outdated, and do not need to be replaced. It is obvious that Soulvisionq1 is a very young person (who is probably still at school), because only the very young are immature enough to consider year-old photos as being 'outdated'. It is also obvious that Soulvisionq1 will never be satisfied and, next year, will consider any photos that you take this year (to fill his/her request), as being 'outdated' next year and will again demand more recent photos. Figaro 22:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree, but seeing as I will be there and I photograph, I will take some anyway but not necessarily upload them. And by all means, your images are not outdated, and they are very imformative and clear. Thankyou for your concern, and clearing the issue up, --Ali K 01:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (BTW, nice photos, not just on this article, but elsewhere. You seem to keep popping up :) )

Thank you for your comments. They are very much appreciated. By the way, I would like very much to see your photos of South Bank Parklands on the article page. Figaro 11:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

South Bank vs South Bank Parklands

I believe the page South Bank, Queensland should be merged with this page as to my knowledge there is not a separate 'South Bank' vs 'South Bank Parklands'. They are the same. Also the other article is hard to find in searches and is not included on disambiguation page. If no comment is received to state why they should not be merged after a week, I will merge South Bank, Queensland into this article. Rimmeraj 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have commented on the talk page for South Bank, 'South Bank' and 'South Bank Parklands' are not the same. The Queensland Museum, for instance, which gives its address as South Bank, is not located within the South Bank Parklands. The Parklands are only part of the South Bank area.

The two articles should be kept separate.

As for the disambiguation comment you have made, I will fix this problem up now. Figaro 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Butterfly-House.jpg

I removed the image because it's neither an important image nor a good one on an already image heavy page. Frankly it's a uninteresting shot with an over-exposed foreground, under-exposed background and is out of focus. I see no need for it to be on the page. Every other image is of interesting architectural features, and this is an unreadable sign. Why?--AtD 09:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your sarcasm about the image and the quality of the image - sorry I could not take a better photo at the time when the Butterfly House existed (anyway, I did not know that I had to please you personally with regard to this - or that I needed to have your personal opinion regarding it, or your personal approval). You obviously feel that your personal opinion is more important than the history of the South Bank Parklands.

Anyway, with regard to the importance (or lack thereof) of the image, I consider that the image is important in a historic context because the Butterfly House no longer exists, and shows what South Bank Parklands used to look like. Figaro 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now rescanned the image to a larger size. None of the criticisms by AtD stand up. Because the image was taken by an analogue camera (before I owned a digital camera), the image shows exactly what the scene looked like at the time the image was taken — anyway, you cannot have both under-exposed and over-exposed on the same image. The reason why the background and foreground look different is because there was bright sunlight when the image was taken (shown by the very light colours of the rocks in the foreground), while the heavy folliage of the trees did not allow very much sunlight to infiltrate (hence the darker colour of shadows shown among the trees). As for the sign, it reads "Butterfly Island (which was what the huge outdoor section of the Butterfly House was called). The sign was unfortunately too far in the distance for me to be able to get a better or clearer shot of it, so distance was the problem — not the focus. Likewise, the bright sunlight and shadows were responsible for differing light and dark appearance of the image between the exposed rocks in the foreground and the shadows of the heavy folliage — not the focus). Figaro 21:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the point AtD makes about this page being "image heavy" is worth considering, however. It is an encyclopædia article after all, and not a photo gallery. When there isn't enough prose to support the available images, it's perhaps a better approach to retain only the most significant and create a category on Commons to link to the rest.--cj | talk 02:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CJ, Commons is a better place for galleries. Figaro, you're taking this very personally, considering you acknowledge that it is a poor photo. Keep cool! --AtD 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not acknowledge that it is a poor photo (stop speaking for me). I was attempting to explain why the rocks were light-coloured and the trees were dark-coloured, and the location of the sign (i.e. the photo was neither over-exposed or under-exposed as you claimed). I was not criticising the photo.

It is interesting that the criticism (about a photo representing the past history of South Bank Parklands in Brisbane) comes from two people who live in Adelaide (not Brisbane). I would not deign to go to Adelaide articles to decide what photos I personally like and think suitable for the articles, and then edit the articles accordingly — I would consider such an action an impudence on my part. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a photo competition — but it is interesting how personal prejudice regarding 'taste' passes for what is thought of as suitable, or otherwise, for the articles, with no thought regarding the context (within the articles) in which the photos are representative. With regard to your comment, regarding the other photos, about interesting architectural features, South Bank Parklands is not just about architecture — it is also about gardens and parklands (hence its name), and what South Bank Parklands stands for. South Bank Parklands originally contained canals and launches, as well as areas for wildlife (including Gondwana and the Butterfly House). Also, a lot of the interesting architectural features came later. The photo you are complaining about is representative of what South Bank Parklands used to look like and it is in this sense, and in that particular section, where the photo is representative and, therefore, located. Figaro 03:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that you are still prone to fallacies of irrelevance. That AtD and I are Adelaideans has no bearing on the merits of our arguments. This diversion seems again to come from ownership issues. To refocus on my actual comment, I made no mention as to the quality of the photograph, I simply voiced concern at the preponderance of images in what is supposed to be an encyclopædia article. In other words, it has become a pseudo image gallery. Instead of arguing about a picture, a more constructive thing to do would be either expanding the prose to be more accommodating of the ample images or removing said images from the article to return focus to the text.--cj | talk 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said that you commented on the quality of the photograph — I was referring to the criticisms which had been made by AtD (in direct answer to a comment made by AtD above the comment I made — please check before you accuse me falsely again). I also resent your comment that I am prone to fallacies of irrelevance, where it appears that you are dragging up the earlier discussions with regard to the Shrine of Remembrance in Brisbane (which you personally considered of less importance than the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne). As you say, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopædia, but you have been the person who has decided to personally confront me about these particular issues (along with AtD with the current discussion). Figaro 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I resented the implication in your comment that because I am not a Brisbanite, I am not entitled to comment (which recalled an earlier disagreement at Talk:Brisbane). It also appeared that you had lumped my and AtD's positions together. I was thus compelled to take issue. It is interesting that you have still not responded to my original point. --cj | talk 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Current class status

I have changed the class assessment to C because WP:BCLASS criteria have not been met. The article has no lead section. It needs to have an overview written. The article has far too many photos, some or most of which have been placed by User:Figaro, whom I have previously tried to explain to that Wikipedia is not a collection of photos and that Wikicommons would be a better place to upload to. The article is not adequately referenced either. Duplicate references need to be merged, others expanded with more source details and a wider variety of sources is needed. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)