Talk:Griffith High School (Indiana)

Image gallery

I've replaced the image gallery that was reverted. See WP:Galleries to learn more about image galleries. An image of the school sign and football field are good additions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul, you should read the entirty of WP:IUP. It also states that:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (seeWP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of 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. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–1795 in fashion for an example of a good use of galleries.

However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. 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.

Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged, as the Commons is intended for such collections of images.

Also, somewhere in the above named policy it states that images should be of the highest quality possible. At this point in time, there is nothing in the article for the picture of the football field to illustrate. There is no section in the article on athletics. If you hadn't noticed, pictures in the format you uploaded those in do not render in a form where they can be viewed in a Wiki article. I have a large monitor, and I could not make out any detail in either photo. If you would want to go over to the high school and shoot some pictures in a 4x3 or square format, those might be usable. The infobox needs either the school logo or a well made photo of the front of the school, or if that isn't possible, the school's sign (one where the sign is the central focal point of the picture, not just one thing of many in a picture of a wall). If some more editorial content gets created, 1 more picture may be appropriate.

The only editorial content in the article right now is very poorly written and really doesn't say much more than the school exists. If you really want to improve this article, add some editorial content. The guidelines for what a school article should and shouldn't contain can be found at WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG.

How about a compromise? If you crop and re-upload the picture that has the sign in it to a square format showing only the sign, that would look good in the infobox (It would be bigger, too). I will be happy to take care of the technical aspects of adding a picture to the infobox if you do that. I see no use at all for either picture right now. A more appropriately formatted picture of the football field might serve to illustrate an "Athletics" section and if I can find the info, I will create a basic one. Has Griffith won any ISHAA state championships?

Please understand, I am not trying to be a jerk here, but do you really think two pictures that you cannot see, that say nothing in the way of telling a story or illustrating some point the text makes, really improve this article? And then ask yourself the same question with the assumption that someone else took the pictures. I only want to make the article better. That is what you really should want too. I will be removing them again pending your reply, as that is clearly what the applicable policy dictates. Be advised, if you replace them without discussion, I will ask for some sort of dispute resolution. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are acting in good faith, that's enough for me. I don't dispute that better pictures can be taken, but since I'm in Kansas City that's difficult for me to get a better picture to upload. As near as I can tell, these are the best that are freely available right now and I would welcome better ones. If you are good with images and would like to crop the one with the sign to put in the infobox, that would be a good move. It's a free use photo, so there's no problem with that and I wouldn't object to that at all. We could probably run some research on Griffith High School football and sports teams, so then the "gallery" section could be removed and this football field image could be added to the athletics section until a better one comes along.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)