Wikipedia

Talk:Jubilee 150 Walkway

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Sorry to spoil the party but...

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This article is ridiculously lovely, i love the images... I know it took a lot of work to put together, but it looks a lot more like a gallery than an encyclopaedic article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to your opinion; mine is different.
I'm somewhat puzzled (but not offended) by first, your opinion, and second, your need to express your opinion in such emotive subjective language.
What value is there in you saying that you think it is "ridiculously overburdened"? It doesn't convey any information further than your opinion.
"but it looks a lot more like a gallery than an encyclopaedic article." - I don't see why "a gallery" and "an encyclopaedic article" are mutually exclusive. Please explain the issue.
J150W IS visual. That's the point of its existance. Why is this a problem?
Further, why do you feel it is necessary to make a fuss about it?
I can accept the fact that "you don't like it". But first: Is that the case you are making? (And if so, why?) And second: OK. That's your opinion. So what?
Can I have less emotive language, less opinion, and more facts please? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's not that I don't like it at all. It's just that such galleries are not particularly appropriate for an encyclopaedia. And it isn't just my opinion, it's an established rule/guideline/etc on Wikipedia. Articles are regularly gutted of their photos by editors, sometimes even removing some good ones in order to keep the structure of the article sound. The thing is, J150W might be 'visual', but the point of its existence is not to provide photos for a Wikipedia article - it's to walk down. ;-) I'm sorry if you thought my initial reply was overly emotive as it wasn't my intention, and I'm glad you're not offended because that was not my intention either. I was just being informal and I guess it came across more dismissive and rude than I meant it to.
I haven't changed my mind though - I think you would find that if we showed the article to established editors, they would likely agree that it is 'overburdened with images' and not really ideal for Wikipedia in its current form. It would be better to link to galleries on Commons than to display every single photo in the article - just keep a few of the more general images for the article itself. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your reply. It is a pleasant change to have someone explain there opinions rather than just repeat their points-of-view. I find your comments interesting and will give them some thought before replying. Again, thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Idea to help improve the article

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you don't mind me butting in, I'd like to expand on Diliff's above concerns a little bit and also give a suggestion for how to better structure the article. In terms of accessibility, one of the problems with the article at the moment is its lack of exposited text. A lot of the content of the article is relying on very short image captions. Although it's still informative, it isn't in a readable, look-up-able, or accessible format for the information. After your introduction, there is very little actual information—a lot in pictures, but not a lot in words. I'll point you to WP:IG so you can read it for yourself, but the guidance has some good tips on how to use galleries, including showcasing 1750-1795 in fashion as an example of multiple galleries well used. My idea for the article though, is something along the lines of these three lists: List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of the largest arch bridges, and List of largest cable-stayed bridges. This could work very well for with the images and would be much more user-friendly than the current format. If you use a sortable wikitable, then readers will be able to sort by the plaque name, the name of the road it's on, the date it was installed (if relevant?), the birth and death dates of the person the plaque is commemorating, and you can add other information that is on the plaque itself, like what the listed "deed" is. I notice that there are also other types of commemoration here, like statues, which could be given a separate table after the main "plaque" table. It's also somewhat confusing, but I've finally worked out that you have structured this (I think!) to show what one would come across if they were to walk the street . . . ie, Mortlock Library, Plaques: Holden - Jolly, and then Museum of Natural History. That's probably a bit too much detail! If you really want this information in the article, the best way I can think of to present it is to create a map of the street, with the buildings labelled and the plaques pointed to. You could number each plaque and statue, and then number their place on the map. I know it sounds like a lot of work, but at the moment the information is not well-presented. A screen reader, for example, would not be able to handle this article, as it would read the buildings as new section headings, followed by another section heading, a few names from image captions, and then another section heading, and so on. It's somewhat contrary to the encyclopaedia's general goals, which is to communicate information, whether images are present or not. Ideally, you should be able to remove the images in any given article and still have an understanding of the subject. Anyway, I hope that's at least a little helpful! Maedin\talk 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't mind. Lots of interesting information there - and much food for thought. And yes, it is indeed "at least a little helpful"!
I will reply when I have followed up your "references" and examples, and thought about it a little. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Categorisation

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just missed out on adding a "strong keep" for the Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway before the CfD discussion was closed as a "delete". The CfD discussion had been initiated by User:RevelationDirect, who assigned the categories Category:Halls of fame in Australia (which I've since removed, because all the other entries in this category are only about sports codes), and Category:Walks of fame. I'm also uneasy about this one, since the latter category is for "Walks of Fame or Walks of Stars or Avenues of Stars, locations where persons or groups are recognized for excellence or success in their career". As this seems to imply that the emphasis is on the individual's "fame" in the sense of U.S.-style notions of individualistic "success", or cults of "celebrity", it doesn't seem entirely appropriate for a list which includes Australia's only Catholic saint, or for those awarded the Victoria Cross, in some cases posthumously, as if these were somehow "career aspirations". In my opinion, given the complexity of the J150W article (which still needs a lot of improvement), it was useful to have the "Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway" as a way for people to find articles on some of those who have made many of the most significant cultural and social contributions to the state.

I don't share RevelationDirect's view (ratherly overly optimistic, in my opinion!) that "If a person is interested in finding these biography articles, the existing framework of people from South Australia is the best way to find them because it breaks them down by politicians, sportspeople, scientists, etc. in a way that logically groups them and aids navigation." (Just try to find articles on these J150W names using the Category:People from South Australia tree! )

One way to remedy this might be to create a navbar for the list of names on the plaques of the J150W, but this could be a messier solution if added to articles (such as Don Bradman), which already have a lot of navbars or navboxes. Bahudhara (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pinging me. Despite it's celebrity origins, "Walk of Fame" is increasingly an idiom for civic monuments that are formatted with plaques in sidewalks with individual names which both allows visitors to spend more time on reflecting than a list of names would and it creates more of a visual impact along a streetscape. The International Civil Rights Walk of Fame and US Space Walk of Fame both cover serious topics and include a fair number of people who died in those pursuits. The Michigan Walk of Fame seems to serve a similar purpose as this one, although the article isn't nearly as good. None of those articles promote cults of celebrity, American or otherwise.
As for Halls of Fame being exclusively sports oriented, check out the various topic sub-categories of Category:Halls of fame. There were definitely a shortage of non-sports articles in Category:Halls of fame in Australia. It now contains Australia Halls of Fame for women, miners, maritime industries, transportation, music, television and pioneers so this article won't seem out of place there.
Even though we disagree in some category places, we both like this article! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Listifying Some Contents

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I like how this article is kind of like a walking tour that makes you feel like you are there. I also understand some of the comments above that all the photographs make it look like a photo gallery. I was looking at List of tallest buildings in Sydney and think that a nicer looking list might work here:

Name Image Birth Death Plaque Accomplishment Inducted Sponsor Location
Angas, George French   1822 1886   Naturalist and author 1986 Angas Family Start of the Walkway
Price, Thomas   1852 1909   First Labor Premier 1905-1909 1986 Australian Labor Party SA Branch Kintore Avenue

Since there have been several conversations above, I wanted to seek input before I made major changes. @Bahudhara, YBG, Pdfpdf, Diliff, and Julia W:

  • Would this be an improvement?
  • Did I leave any columns out?
  • How could I better describe the location?

Thanks for your help improving the article RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jubilee 150 Walkway. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jubilee_150_Walkway&oldid=1211188789"