Talk:BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Houston

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Houston. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140214012900/http://houston.baps.org/events_weekly.html to http://houston.baps.org/events_weekly.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130705070127/http://www.fortbendstar.com:80/2013/06/20/baps-charities-walkathon-supports-firefighters-ada-and-stafford-msd/ to http://www.fortbendstar.com/2013/06/20/baps-charities-walkathon-supports-firefighters-ada-and-stafford-msd/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy

I have reverted the tag placed on the article based on Wikipedia:Image use policy, specifically the policy Wikipedia:Gallery. As stated in the policy, "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." The images in the gallery shows the artistic architecture and the images of the idols placed in the temple, which are all described within the text. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Also, per WP:GALLERY, the images cannot be repetitive or show undue weight. Showing multiple pictures of the exterior of the mandir is repetitve (two of the pictures are of the front of the mandir for example). The sheer number of images of the exterior gives WP:UNDUE weight to the importance of the architecture. Also, again per WP:GALLERY, the images need to "be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery." Finally, One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons. Therefore, cleanup is required.  Bait30  ^Talk? 05:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you are correct that captions should be added to the photos. However, re-reading the policy I don't see where undue weight by photos are mentioned. I do think the images from the front show various angles and and depth showing the reader the full grounds where the temple sits. I think we should see what others think regarding this issue. Apollo1203 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being civil about this disagreement. I'll ask for a third opinion about this. If you disagree, you can still feel free to start an RFC about this.  Bait30  ^Talk? 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Apollo1203 The point Bait30 raised about undue weight is in the policy. I think we can remove some of the repetitive photos featuring the same angle of the mandir. I also agree there should be clear captioning describing the relevance of each image to the article. Let me look at the article more closely to see what can be adjusted. I'm going to traveling these next few days so will try to chime in where I can. Moksha88 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think what Moksha88 is saying makes sense. I'd much rather see some more close ups of different carvings, than the same exterior shots just from different angles. Seems like it's policy and it makes for a more thorough article. It may be good to showcase different aspects of the mandir, carvings, size, architecture, landscaping etc. Just my 2 cents. I can also take a closer look at the article to fish out which pictures may be worth keeping and comment below as well. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion: In short, yes. There are too many similar photos which do not add to the value of the article and, specifically, it's subject: the temple and edifice themselves. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think probably a good idea to trim the gallery of some of the redundant pics. However, we should definitely not remove the whole thing - a lot of value in keeping many of these photos. Actionjackson09 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

To all that gave their input and opinion, thank you. I'm glad we came to a solution in a civil manner. I have removed repetitive images, added captions, and a citation for the images used. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

largest of its kind in Texas?

Radha Madhav Dham claims to be "the largest in North America". idk if that's true but the footprint and height of that one (35,000 sqft temple with a 90 ft tall dome) certainly seems to exceed the footprint and height of this one (11,500 sqft and 73 ft tall). And given that Radha Madhav Dham is older than this temple it couldn't be said that this one used to be the "largest of its kind in Texas" and then lost that title when a newer temple was built.

The only way both claims could be true is if the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Houston is of a different kind? If so then what is meant by "it's kind" should be elaborated upon. TerraFrost (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)