Talk:Imagination Station

NPOV dispute

First person! THis was done by COSI Toledo, no doubt! (Jjboggs43204 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Ehhh... no. A Toledoan, but not COSI. The bulk of the article was created by hmwith, who I have adopted. I will say that a good portion has been taken from the COSI website, and I will talk to her about that. I have done my best to edit the first person out of the article, but if you see anything else, please, help change it! After all, you work for COSI, you might be able to edit the page better than us. Respectfuly, wpktsfs 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I do not see anything in this article that could really be considered POV, except maybe the large number of references from COSI Toledo itself (but calling that a POV issue is quite a stretch). Regardless, I fleshed out the article some and replaced several of the internal sources with citations from external organizations.

However, I should note that tagging this article as {{POV}} is 50% of this editor's contributions in the past 80 days, and the other edit [1] was tagging the COSI Columbus article as POV. That, combined with the fact that the NPOV dispute process was not followed ("on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled 'NPOV dispute' ... then, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV"), makes it very difficult to assume good faith and see this as anything but tag-abuse vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author, and, yes, I am a Toledoan. I thank all of you for helping with the article. I just got some basic facts out there about COSI from the website, and I was/am planning to continue editing the article with more information, but then I went out of town, but I hope that some of you that noticed that it was slanted could help make it more neutral or give me advice on what to change/add/delete. I'd truly appreciate it. - hmwith 11:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added criticisms, and I think that it's neutral enough now, so I took off the POV tag. If you disagree, replace the tag. - hmwith 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cosi3.JPG

Image:Cosi3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Education programs

I took out the Education programs section because this refers to the old COSI, not the new Imagination Station. I imagine they still run the programs but I think we need more up-to-date info and sources. Rees11 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Info Box

I changed the dates in the info box to match that of Imagination Station. The old 1997 established / 2007 dissolved dates would be more appropriate for a separate COSI Toledo article if there were one. --98.224.216.6 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but I've got a problem with the image caption. The photo is actually of COSI, not Imagination Station. What we really need is a new photo. Rees11 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure something could be arranged, especially since we have not been to the re-opened facility ... :-)—Kralizec! (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fresnel lens

Is the fresnel lens still there? I didn't see it when we visited. If it's gone we might consider removing the photo.

I'd like to see a photo added of the high-wire bike. Rees11 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From past experience, I can say that it is really hard to take a good photo of the bike in action, especially due to the funky lighting conditions in the central room.—Kralizec! (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)