Talk:Raymond Terrace

Australia: Places / New South Wales Low‑importance

	Australia portal Raymond Terrace is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

"This article does not cite any references or sources."

This tag is confusing. Other than the recreation section, which I didn't author, I don't really see anything that needs references that hasn't got one. (The page only has one reference anyway).--AussieLegend 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Stephens Council Logo

Why is the picture of PS council's logo? Surely Raymond Terrace has more going for it then Port Stephens Council. Steve Toscano 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port Stephens Council is both the name of the Local Government Area and the name of the local government body that administers the LGA. This is standard policy in New South Wales. Since Raymond Terrace is a town in Port Stephens Council it seems appropriate that the logo is used until such time as somebody uploads an alternate image especially since Raymond Terrace is also the administrative centre of Port Stephens Council. If you have a better image to upload or if you know of one that has already been uploaded I'd be more than happy to replace the logo with it. --AussieLegend 09:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to delete gallery of pictures

AussieLegend advises, images that don't "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", should be deleted; just as he has done at Paterson. Using AussieLegend's assessment of what was an informative gallery at Paterson - the gallery at Raymond Terrace is just a collection of images that don't add anything encyclopaedic to the article. It could be said, as AussieLeged says similarly says elsewhere, None of the images tell you anything about Raymond Terrace itself. They're just riverscapes and a couple of bridge pictures which could have been taken anywhere in the Lower Hunter region, pictures of ordinary stuff that cant be described in the prose itself, such as the image "Local residents fishing in the Hunter and Williams rivers at the same time". Besides, who is to say they are residents - perhaps they were visitors to the region. According to AussieLegend, per WP:IG, "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." So, based on AussieLegend's own application of WP policy, this gallery will be removed in due course - what is good for the goose is good for the gander - despite my view that the Raymond Terrace gallery has a good set of pictures. Apparently it is a rigid, non-flexible, personal and selective interpretation of policy that is more important than including pictures that will be informative to someone who visits WP. Benyoch (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no image gallery in this article. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with our policies, particularly WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Following editors around seeing what "damage" you can do to articles edited by that person in retaliation for edits they've made that you don't like is most inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be more helpful to all if you explained yourself and actually TALK with a view to coming to a consensus. Such a practice would have been helpful here and at Paterson, as some people are not as legendary as yourself. Benyoch (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need explained that isn't already obvious? What you mistakenly perceive to be a gallery is a group of only four intimately related images in one template forming what is effectively one image that includes a link to other media at commons. Unlike the images you included at Paterson, New South Wales, all of the images are of different parts of one subject, the Raymond Terrace foreshore, with the template titled accordingly. The images are encyclopaedically arranged from south-west to north-east. They show the Hunter River, identifying how wide the river is next to the town and include a view of the Fitzgerald bridge over the Williams River, just north-east of the confluence of the Hunter and Williams. The bridge is an important transport link from the town to western parts of the LGA and other regions beyond, including Paterson. If you are so amenable to talking, perhaps you could explain this edit, in which you changed valid category names to invalid names (obvious by the fact that they are redlinks) and why you felt it necessary to include a hatnote directing readers to an article that doesn't exist. You can also explain why you restored the same bad categories and unnecessary hatnote after your edits were correctly reverted by another editor,[1] but please do so at the Paterson talk page. Try to address your own shortcomings before criticising others. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, AussieLegend. So, if I understand you correctly, several images become one because they are in a template, and that doesn’t constitute a gallery. I can live with that and so your template of images should stay.

As far as that edit goes, it puzzled me too since you bought it to my attention, for which I thank you, because the only thing I knew I changed on that page was the word ‘during’, re the flood. Like you, I wondered why the hatnote and the changes to the categories. So I posted a query in the section titled ‘Hacking the Revision History’ at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, on 21:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC). The conclusion of our wiki colleagues is that I edited an old version of the page and my reversion repeated the problem – I fully agree – mea culpa. So I hope that addresses your query.

From this time on it’s my intention to model my inclusion of images based on the way you have done things, upon your methodology, if that is OK with you. Please advise me that this is what should be done. Regards, Benyoch. Benyoch (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite as simple as combining a series of images into the template, the images need to be closely related. For example, combining these images would still result in a gallery, while combining only the first three to illustrate the bridge would not be. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the first three are good images that illustrate the bridge (by way of contrast in time and conditions), why did you unilaterally delete them?.Benyoch (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having trouble comprehending what I write, here and at Talk:MV Pasha Bulker. I thought my last post was clear when I said "the images need to be closely related" in order not to be a gallery. By including other images, ie by not "combining only the first three to illustrate the bridge", you've created a gallery that includes three images of the bridge, 2 related to the river and 4 of other subjects. The images are related to the article's subject, but not each other. If the only images in the gallery were of the bridge, and there was some commentary establishing the significance of the bridge, there may have been some cause to retain the images, but this was not the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that when images are closely related and have commentary establishing the significance of those images then the images as a group do not qualify as a gallery. Is that your position? Benyoch (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a over wiki week since my last post for you, Aussie, so I will accept that as your position unless you tell me otherwise before the end of seven days from hence. Benyoch (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images have to be closely related, ie they have to all be pictures of one bridge, or of one building etc. Images that are related only by the fact that they are relevant to the article's subject, eg these images still form a gallery. There should be something in the article that justifies inclusion of any image. They shouldn't be gratuitously placed. For example, File:Fishing at Raymond Terrace.jpg in the "Recreation" section demonstrates recreation (fishing) and the fact that it's possible to fish in two rivers at once. Location of Raymond Terrace at the confluence of two rivers is established in the lead and the relevance of the foreshore as being the western boundary of the town is established at the beginning of the geography section. By contrast, File:Paterson.JPG is just a picture of some land near Paterson. The significance of what is in the image isn't explained in the article. It was just there. Regarding galleries, they can be appropriate in some circumstances. For example, at Anna Bay, New South Wales historical usage of tank traps is discussed in the prose and the article includes a small gallery showing tank traps around the end of Stockton Beach. Because the article is so short, use of {{multiple image}} is problematic so a gallery is a better option. If only there was something more to say about Anna Bay, but that's another story. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]