Talk:Seymour High School (Indiana)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Indiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gymnasium

I initially provided a picture of Seymour H.S.'s gym with the caption that it is the third largest gym in the country. Although this is noted elsewhere on Wikipedia, John from Idegon (talk) understandably noted that it needs a source. So I then provided that source, yet John from Idegon nevertheless re-deleted it, erroneously and improperly, claiming a need for consensus. It appears to be this user's approach to many edits on this page. Regardless, the claim is sourced and there is no dispute over the gym's ranking in seating capacity.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough discussion here for either a 3rd opinion or an RFC, so I've removed the request for both. If we can not come to a consensus here, we can continue other dispute resolution methods.

In my view, the size of the gymnasium is trivia, but since it has been widely reported by reliable sources, it should still be included in the article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My primary opposition is to the inclusion of the photo. An exterior shot is much more needed than an interior. Further, I don't think I'm alone in finding that a photo shot with an ultra wide angle lens to be visually confusing, and not really illustrative of the subject. The copy illustrates the topic of the gym quite nicely, altho I agree with Bill that it is a bit trivial. The photo is unneeded. John from Idegon (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an initial matter, your alleged concern over the need for a picture is a new issue. Your prior argument was that it didn't have a source, and then later that one must first reach consensus before adding a source. Your position seems to continually change. Regardless, we do indeed have a disagreement that I believe warrants outside comments. This is a unique, nationally-known gym and its interior plays a large factor into that. Moreover, if you look at the Wiki pages of any gym or arena the interiors are frequently (if not usually) the image that's included. I'm confident the community will reach the same conclusion and it's unfortunate that John from Idegon's domineering style requires this unnecessary, time-consuming step to include a benign, obvious addition to the community. BillHPike, I will give you the opportunity to first re-post the 3rd opinion or RFC request.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The gym is nationally known and is probably the single most notable thing about this school (unless it is the fact that John Mellencamp went there). If the interior shot is the best we've got, why not use it until we get something better? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, Arxiloxos (talk). As for the style of the interior shot, the panoramic image best captures the full character of the gym, which is an important point along with its size. A simple square image of just one corner or one area does not capture its unique aspects. As I noted, interior shots are common, if not the most common, images to use of gyms and arenas. Panoramic images are frequently used in other articles and I believe with good reason.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this school is more well known for its athletics than its academics. This is unfortunate, but not unusual for American educational institutions. I would support including the photograph since it illustrates an aspect of the school that has been widely reported by reliable sources.

@IndyNotes: Have you taken any exterior photos of the school? Notwithstanding my above comment, I think John has valid point about the WP:WEIGHT if the only photograph of the school is of the gym interior. Perhaps we could include an exterior photo in the info box and the gym photo in the body of the article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, BillHPike, I don't have an exterior photo. Besides, I do not believe that WP:WEIGHT requires that when one image exists of the interior, it must be excluded for lack of an exterior image. In this instance, the interior image is the most important anyway (the exterior is a generic, simple-looking box). If at some point we have both, we can include both, but the interior of the gym is the most defining feature of this school (outside, perhaps, its alumnus John Mellencamp). --IndyNotes (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source for "most defining", IndyNotes? You seem to know a lot about the school, indicated by your unsourced POV statement that the gym is the most defining thing about the school; can you somehow make or request someone you know to make, an image of the outside of the school? Pictures are not for decorations, they are to illustrate copy in a way words cannot. A picture of the school serves to visually identify it. There is already much more copy than we would normally include about one room in a school. The description is quite adequate in making the point that it is large. Although why that is important is not explained in any way, and a picture sure won't tell us that. Being included in a single USA Today story does not equate with nationally known. I cannot remember where, but we had a similar debate a few years ago over a list article that was based on that USA today story. I, being a native Hoosier, that it is a point-of-pride for the school, but I think that Mellenkamp and the thousands of nobody's that this school trained for life is much more important than one room in this or any school. Emphasizing it so much is definitely WEIGHT; adding a picture without others to balance it only serves to increase that. John from Idegon (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon, your list of objections continues to grow without adequately tying up your previously discarded objections. First, you claimed the issue was a lack of a source. Although a different Wiki page provides one, I agreed that was an accurate and reasonable point, so I provided two sources as examples, although there are literally thousands of quality sources available on any search engine supporting that. I offered a couple, which Wikipedia:Verifiability considers adequate. Your snide reference to "a single USA Today" source is hollow; there are thousands addressing this and if you don't like one of the two I provided or one elsewhere on Wikipedia, spend your time on something more productive by adding the sources you deem superior. Nevertheless, having addressed this issue, you shifted to a new argument, namely that one must first reach consensus before adding a source. Wikipedia:Editing policy does not dictate this at all, but in the face of clear consensus to include the fact and an image, you shifted to a third position -- that no image should be included. Consensus once again formed around a different position (not yours) so you've now landed on your fourth different argument. This latest position is that we should include an exterior shot of the gym rather than the unique interior that relates to the gym's defining characteristic, its seating capacity and the layout of it. Nothing in WP:WEIGHT requires that when one image exists of the interior, it must be excluded for lack of an exterior image. You're left without any new arguments unless you decide to think up a new fifth point of contention. But I think we're beyond that now and the consensus is clear -- keep the image and the well-sourced fact that it is indeed the third largest high school gym in the United States. Finally, I would encourage you in the future to select from one of the thousands of quality sources backing up all of this instead of sitting back to criticize. You'll make Wikipedia better off for it. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search on the school, the gym is clearly the most notable thing about it so not only is an interior shot of it good to have, I would say its necessary to have. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the overwhelming support for the change, I withdraw my objection. At some point in the future, I will be revamping the layout of this article. If there is anyone in the area that could upload an exterior photo, it would be appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know we have a request from two colleagues and seeming friends for an exterior photo, which has now resulted in a formal request template. I don't believe there's consensus for an external image, nor do I think Wikipedia standards require it, but I suppose I have no opposition to that.--IndyNotes (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no reason why both can't be on the article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]