Charles Darwin Reserve 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
Charles Darwin Reserve is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
Draw your attention to the use of irrelevant images in this article.
The criteria for inclusion is simple: Was this photograph taken at the Charles Darwin Reserve? If yes, it can be included. If the answer is no, it can't. It really is that simple, user:Maias!
NO. It was taken at Alice Springs Telegraph Station, Australia.
I have restored the images as they illustrate fauna which the reserve was intended to protect and so are entirely relevant. Whether they were taken on the reserve is irrelevant as they are intended to illustrate the fauna, not the reserve itself. Your criteria are mistaken. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. I have also removed the images from this talk page as their size was making the page virtually unreadable. If you have a good image of the reserve to replace the images, please do so; until then please leave them to enhance the article for those who are interested in what kind of animals live there. Maias (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature is correct. How do either of these images fulfil "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". The images are not directly relevant to the article's topic because they were not taken at the location identified in the article's topic. What part of this is so hard for you Maias? 86.140.124.83 (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The images animal species (not individuals) that occur in, and are protected by, the reserve. The images do not have to be taken in the reserve to depict those species. Maias (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's go back to the guideline you originally quoted. Are these pictures compliant with "images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic"? Please explain user:Maias, because you quoted the guidance in the first place.
Have you considered perhaps that the geology, is different at Charles Darwin Reserve to that thousands of miles away? Have you considered the local flora are different? Or the local fauna (extremely generally "illustrated") are in fact different subpopulations? No. Because there is no thinking going on.
Furthermore, let's actually think about the quality of images themselves: in particular is a low quality photograph, containing out of focus metal fencing.
Do any of the other articles on Bush Heritage Australia's contain stupid irrelevant images? No.
I refer you to the part of the guideline that says "images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals". The images may not be ideal, but they are all we have at the moment. They illustrate faunal species found on the reserve. I would welcome their replacement by better images if you can find any. Meanwhile they are quite appropriate. Maias (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for pointing this out. So we ignore the important bit at the start that says "images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic"?
Your suggested images are transparently irrelevant to the title of the article. Furthermore, their inclusion without indicating their irrelevance in the caption is misleading in the extreme. A reader looking at the article, sees a picture and assumes that it is relevant. Except they aren't relevant
As you say, "the images are not ideal" is probably the understatement of the century.
You have consistently failed to justify why these should be included. Indeed, the inclusion of irrelevant and misleading images detracts from that of a professional encyclopedia.
IP, it takes two to edit-war and I note that you've removed the image four times while Maias has restored them only three times. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject appears to have generated so much angst, I suggest a compromise. We can lose the Euro image as depicting inappropriate habitat. However, a Malleefowl image is highly appropriate within the section on the Important Bird Area. I have also made it clear that the image is not from the reserve itself, but depicts a species that sis important for the reserve. If anyone has any problems with this solution, please discuss here rather than arbitrarily reverting. Maias (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Charles Darwin Reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
.svg){kind=logo}
