Jump to content

Talk:Upper Kotmale Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggestion to move the page to "Upper Kotmale Power Station"

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Upper Kotmale Dam → Upper Kotmale Power Station – This page has a detailed description which does not match the Dam category. A hydro power station comprises with multiple components
1 Dam/Reservoir
2 Headrace tunnel
3 Power house etc.

This article covers all areas but categorized under "Dams".

I Suggest this page to be moved to "Upper Kotmale Power Station" Pheonix (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of content

[edit]

User:Obi2canibe, following the question on your talkpage that has been left unanswered for the past five days, I have reverted this nonconstructive edit made by you. Please explain your reasoning for the mentioned diff, here on this talkpage. Thank you, Rehman 09:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman: My edit was neither unexplained (an edit summary was provided) or non-constructive (please educate yourself on what constitutes as non-constructive). As explained in the edit summary and in our subsequent discussion, it was to make this article comply with two policies: WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obi2canibe;
  • NOTGALLERY is mostly to prevent editors from cluttering the articles with many images of the same subject. The version you removed, neither had multiple images (only two, outside the infobox), nor was it depicting the same subject. Are you going to do the same to Hoover Dam, so that the article will have only one picture of the topic at hand?
  • ALSO is to avoid repetitive linking of the same pages multiple times within the same article. The version you removed, did not have those links anywhere in the article body, but only had one other link to it in small font, at the very bottom of a navbox which is mostly collapsed by default on most devices. While ALSO does state to not duplicate links, it also mentioned that it's ultimately a matter of common sense. Again, are you going to do the same to Hoover Dam?
After educating yourself on the nature of the changes you had made, please explain:
  1. How is having those additional images, which are not even depicting the same subject, creating more harm than good?
  2. For those images that you personally decided to retain, how are shrinking those whole photos to 100px (a few pixels shy of icon range) going to help the reader?
  3. Likewise, is the "see also" section also looking so disruptive to you? Could you please elaborate on how having it causes more harm?
Appreciate a timely response, if you are able to, so that this too doesn't happen to get archived. Rehman 03:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: I'm glad you've brought up Hoover Dam. This as WP:FA and a very long article. It has many images but because it has lots of encyclopedic narrative the images don't dominate the article, they complement it. The articles you've created a virtually stubs, with just two or three sentences of narrative. Having more than so many images just overpowers this article so I reduced their size and removed one of a pylon tower (one pylon tower looks much like any other pylon tower). The only reason you want to include these images is because you took them.
WP:ALSO clearly states "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Hoover Dam may contain a See also section because there is a lot of content between the end of the narrative sections and the navigation templates (very long References, Bibliography and External links sections). Your articles do not. Again, the only reason you want to include these two articles in the See also section is that you've worked on them. I repeat, Wikipedia isn't here to promote yourself.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obi2canibe, thank you for clearly stating that you have a problem with images I upload, and articles I write. It makes assessing your intentions clearer. I am asking you for the third time. Looking at your edit in this article:
  1. How is having those additional images, which are not even depicting the same subject, creating more harm than good?
  2. For those images that you personally decided to retain, how are shrinking those whole photos to 100px (a few pixels shy of icon range) going to help the reader?
  3. Likewise, is the "see also" section also looking so disruptive to you? Could you please elaborate on how having it causes more harm?
Stop dodging questions and wasting my time. Rehman 15:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: I have answered your questions but as you don't like the responses you're accusing me of dodging them.
It is not a question of doing more harm than good. It is a question of following Wikipedia policies and not circumventing them to promote oneself. Your edits are a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO. As an administrator it is your duty to enforce these policies but instead you are seeking exemptions, as they don't do harm, simply to promote yourself. Rules are rules. You can't chose to ignore them just because nobody gets hurt.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obi2canibe. Please define exactly where have you responded to the two specific questions listed above? All I can see is noise about my questions, as opposed to answers to the questions. How is it even a "clear violation" as you so wisely put? I am explaining to you again:
  • Your NOTGALLERY claim doesn't hold. Since you didn't bother to read the captions before removing the content, I've took the effort to explain and educate you many times that they are not of the same subject, and rather how they depict very important aspect of the overall picture. Please read my previous comment, in case you decided to ignore that too.
  • Your ALSO claim doesn't hold. The see also section does help improve as a matter of common sense. You once again dodged answering how you think having it causes more harm than good.
And to top it all up, you have quite carelessly and bluntly stated that you do have a problem with linking articles I create and pictures I upload. Are you telling me that others who link articles they write and pictures they upload, are promoting themselves? Does all this look like some sort of competition to you?
You also quite conveniently dodged my question about how a 100px image would be helpful. As a matter of fact, you somehow managed to not mention anything about it at all, but managed to mention a plethora of other nonsense such as what my duties as an admin are, how "rules are rules", and whatnot. Rehman 08:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Obi2canibe, stop ignoring, and answer my question. We don't want this slipping under the carpet too. Rehman 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: I'm not ignoring you, I've just had better things to do. Don't take it personally - I've asked many editors follow policies and not use Wikipedia to promote themselves. They, like you, don't react too well to this and engage in all sorts of shenanigans e.g. using a sock-puppet to make spurious accusation as ANI.
I have responded to your comments regarding WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO. I believe they are relevant but you don't agree with that view. We are just repeating ourselves. Is it time to take this to WP:DRN?--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rehman: @Obi2canibe: Hi, member of WikiProject Dams here. I would like to point out there appears to be no violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, which states only that "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of... photographs or media files with no accompanying text." All photographs appear to be properly captioned and relevant to the article, and there does not appear to be an excess of images. The pictures currently are also far too small at 100px. MOS:IMAGES states that all images should default to 220px, and vary "only where a smaller or larger image is appropriate". I see no reason why the images are shrunken so small, as it makes them hard to read. In regards to WP:ALSO, it is standard practice to include links to lists. For example, Pacoima Dam is linked to List of dams and reservoirs in California, as are all other articles about California dams. Let's not turn this into an edit war, please. Thanks, Shannon [ Talk ] 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the 3O, Shannon1. @Obi2canibe:, WP:DRN would make things much easier. If you still don't like linking photos taken by me or articles I wrote, please do proceed. I am reverting your edits as your motives are now clear. Rehman 23:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shannon1: Could you point me to where it says WP:DAMS has permission to ignore Wikipedia policies? Could you also clarify of Rehman has communicated with you?--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you first reply to my questions above? Or, if you would still like to dodge them, why not move on with your DRN plan? Last thing we need is this discussion being distracted into another baseless sockpuppet accusation. Rehman 23:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: As a longtime member of the project I am often informed of dam-related discussions, this included, so that is why I responded. Also, what do you mean by "WP:DAMS has permission to ignore Wikipedia policies?" Please clarify. Thanks, Shannon [ Talk ] 07:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: Thank you. What I meant was that WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO are Wikipedia policies but in your first comment you seemed to imply that WP:DAMS had decided to ignore them.
WP:ALSO states clearly that the ""See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". This is repeated in WP:NAVLIST. In your comment yo state that it's OK to include lists in the See Also section even if they also in navigation boxes.
WP:NOTGALLERY states "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files...If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context". Do you believe that the images in this, this and this provide encyclopedic context?
@Rehman: I have answered your questions, we were just repeating the same points and going nowhere. I was not accusing Shannon1 of sock-puppetry, I was just curious to know if there had been any WP:CANVASS.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Obi2canibe: I still don't understand what you mean about the See also section; I mentioned nothing about "navigation boxes". List of dams and reservoirs in Sri Lanka doesn't appear to be linked anywhere in this article, other than in the See also section which you deleted. In the examples you provided for NOTGALLERY, I agree the images are way too large and should be shrunken to fit with the rest of the content -- though I'm not sure how to handle that as it might result in some weird layout issues. Maybe we should get the opinion of an editor more experienced with MOS:IMAGES? Shannon [ Talk ] 06:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: Sorry, I thought you were aware of the reason why I removed the See Also section. Two articles listed in the section - List of dams and reservoirs in Sri Lanka and List of power stations in Sri Lanka - appear in Template:Electricity in Sri Lanka and Template:Inland waters of Sri Lanka. These two navigation boxes are at the foot of the article. This goes against WP:ALSO which states that the ""See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes".
Certainly would welcome others views on the inclusion of images and their sizes.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see what you mean, I honestly wasn't aware of that rule regarding See Also -- though I've been on the wiki 10 years, and literally never seen this come up as an issue. I'll ask for another opinion at WP:RFC. Shannon [ Talk ] 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shannon1: No problem, I will wait and see what others have to say.--Obi2canibe (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on images and sections

[edit]

The consensus is to add the images. Editors stated that the images add to the understanding of the subject and that lack of text concerns can be addressed by adding more text.

There is no consensus about the presence of the "See also" section owing to insufficient discussion so there is no prejudice against further discussion about that.

Maproom wrote, "The article is supposedly about the dam. Most of the pictures are not of the dam." This was not discussed by other editors in the RfC, so there is no prejudice against further discussion about whether this article should be named "Upper Kotmale Dam" or "Upper Kotmale Hydropower Project".

Cunard (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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.

Hi, as can be seen above, there has been a lengthy debate on this and other Sri Lankan dam articles (Kotmale Dam, Castlereigh Dam, Laxapana Dam, etc.) regarding the size/presence of images and a "see also" section (current revision, with 220px images and see also section added and previous revision, with 100px images and see also section removed). User:Obi2canibe has wanted the See Also section removed due to those links already being present in the navigation box below, per WP:ALSO, but I believe such a section is pretty standard on most geography-related articles. User:Rehman has wanted to add more images to these articles, such as here, but Obi2canibe says this is violating WP:NOTGALLERY. It would be appreciated if somebody good with WP:MOS could help settle this matter. Thanks, Shannon [ Talk ] 16:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mediating, Shannon1. Further to the above, for the reader's ease of navigation I'm linking other parallel discussions here as well (as this is not the main discussion, nor the primary venue the issues stemmed from).

And other venues such as below, which "happen" to also link to articles I wrote, and/or pictures I took:

--Rehman 23:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold or Add It looks like we are being asked several things here. First, the 220 size is best, 100 is too small. Second, this is an encyclopedia, articles should give ample, meaningful content about subjects. We have a wonderful medium here that displays pictures - so use them. Third, WP:NOTGALLERY is a safeguard against articles becoming repositories of data and pictures instead of meaningful content. As long as the pictures are relevant, are properly captioned, and most importantly, add to the reader's understanding of the subject, then they should be included generously. I would rather come across an article with too many photos and have to edit it then come across the all-too-many articles on wikipedia that have few or no photos and think, "I wish there were some good photos showing me the subject matter so I could understand this better." StarHOG (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@StarHOG: All of these articles are stubs, often with just one or two sentences of text. Shouldn't editors spend time expanding the narrative content rather than spamming the articles with photos they've taken? After all, Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a social media platform to show off.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add the pictures. They seem to add to the understanding of the subject. The see also section also does not seem to me to be in danger of being too long. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC) CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CapitalSasha: Wouldn't narrative content help readers understand the subject more than pictures?--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an either/or decision. We can have both pictures and text, which is the best! CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but as it stands it seems to be all pictures and little text which is not the point of Wikipedia.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article again, and I know what you are talking about @Obi2canibe:, some articles don't have a lot of content, but this article has a ton of content, and all the pictures are captioned and seem relevant to me. StarHOG (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the balance is off, the solution here is to add more narrative next if necessary -- the pictures are all relevant and helpful. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. The article is supposedly about the dam. Most of the pictures are not of the dam. The first sentence of the article says that the Upper Kotmale Dam is "also known as the Upper Kotmale Hydropower Project", which seems unlikely, and if true needs a reference. If the article is really meant to be about the whole power project, it should be renamed. Maproom (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_Kotmale_Dam&oldid=1210805492"