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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tampa Bay, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Tampa BayWikipedia:WikiProject Tampa BayTemplate:WikiProject Tampa BayTampa Bay articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
upon loading this article the user is bombarded with no less than SEVEN images, yes there all very pretty; but they are distracting, delete some and spread out the rest, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.175.172 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2007
Not tryna get into an edit war over an image of a park. @Grorp: The second image (one of the bat house) clearly was an apt usage of an image of a major preserve (Moccasin Lake) located in Clearwater. You quote MOS:IMAGE's "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" section, but how are either of the images I placed in the section not "relevant". The "Parks and recreation" section is 721 characters long currently, of which 382 (or ~53% of the section) are of the nature preserve. Even if this section was expanded, the nature preserve is still a major part of the city's parks and recreation element. So the images are definitely relevant. Arguing they are not significant is quite particularly subjective here and so I think you are more following the letter of that MOS:IMAGE guideline, and not enough considering the spirit of it.
Regardless, in the same paragraph you quoted in your edit summary, the guideline states "When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones," and so I again will link the Commons category of images of Moccasin Lake Nature Park, because I can confidently ensure you that including one (1) image from there is not somehow bloating or overloading the Clearwater article with images (so it wouldn't be violating that other sentence about how "not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting" in that guideline's paragraph) and including one of those images is again, relevant because it is going to be located within the appropriate section of the article. Perhaps this image of a walkway within the preserve or of a directional signpost pointing towards Moccasin Lake may be apt to include. And if not, what image exactly from that category (or even, perhaps, what type of image not found in the category) would you consider alright, because a compromise of sorts would be nice. Soulbust (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images of the raptor and bathouse would be appropriate in the article Moccasin Lake Nature Park because it is relevant to that topic. It is not relevant and significant to the article Clearwater, Florida. For an article on a city, appropriate photographs might be maps, street views, skylines, prominent buildings, prominent landforms (mountain, beach, lake, forest), prominent statuary or monuments, etc. Now if the city had a historic "mascot" of a raptor and had been marketing itself with that for decades, then a photo of the current raptor mascot would be appropriate. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
