Talk:Mandeville, Jamaica

Notable people section...

...looks really bad. Lily20 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion of image

An editor deleted a photo from the notable persons section, that was of a person in the list of notable persons, remarking that it was not a photo of Mandeville. He appears to be unfamiliar with wp, and I pointed out that this was normal - giving him one example - as I reverted him. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B1D4:1A82:4DE7:6D69 (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The example you gave is from a dedicated list article, not a main city article. A picture of a person from Mandeville actually in Mandeville would be useful, but not just a generic photo of them. Btw, I'm not a new user, and have been active on Wikipedia a long time, so it's incorrect to state that I'm "unfamiliar with wp". Also, you've been reverted after making a bold edit, it's up to you to get a consensus to change it back, per WP:BRD. BilCat (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a distinction without a difference. You can find the same throughout the Project - which I imagined you would be aware of if you were familiar with wp. It's all over the project. Or tell me - do you believe that it is not the case? And there is zero difference in our MOS or rules on this point for lists of notable persons in standalone versus embedded lists. But as you are familiar with wp I expect you know that. I'm assuming good faith on your part - that you will note your error, and self-revert. Or if not - let's bring this to an appropriate board for input.

You are frankly just making up a rule that does not exist. I'm not sure how to explain this since you are familiar with wp. And since you must be a good faith editor. What rule for god's sake do you believe states "you cannot have images for notable people of city x, unless it is a standalone list"? Please, educate me -- where (if you did not make it up) is this rule?2603:7000:2143:8500:A1FD:3B7A:A59C:BEF3 (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no such rule or policy. Such images are highly common throughout WP, & this idea that such a photo should be taken in the place itself is just odd. But some people have strange views about images, not supported by policy. The pic should be re-added. Johnbod (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed there was such a rule, nor was I attempting to make up a rule. I simply believe photos should be relevant to an article's subject, and that one isn't. It's not a photo of the town, and so adds nothing to the article. Thus it fails MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. BilCat (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense! That says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context" - note the last word. nowhere does it say they have to show the narrow topic of the article title. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree w/Johnbod. Billcat - again .. please revert. (same IP writing). 2603:7000:2143:8500:1DE0:9063:E053:F3FB (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I still oppose this as not being relevant to the article's context. If you had a photo of Heavy D performing in Mandeville, that would be relevant, or perhaps even wearing a shirt that said something about being from Mandeville. As it is, it's just decoration. BilCat (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer the photo of Heavy D to be replaced by the one for another notable in the list - Paul R. Cunningham because (1) Dr Cunningham is more notable; (2) the photo illustrates what he does; (3) its a better photo and (4) I am of an age that prefers the work of surgeons to rappers. In general I have no problem with photos alongside lists of notables.ArbieP (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)