Talk:Watkins Glen State Park

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Watkins Glen State Park[edit]

I object to making an external link to LLBean as they sell a product. That site has limited informational content and is there only to attract business. ILovetheFingerLakes.com is the largest tourism website in the Finger Lakes region and should be listed for all matters dealing with tourism in the Finger Lakes as it has the most comprehensive information about the Finger Lakes. I don't sell anything other than advertising. I provide tourism information. --Ilovethefingerlakes (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, promoting your own website is in violation of Wikipedia:NOADS, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image dispute[edit]

Collapsing concluded discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

image #1

image #2

There is contention between myself and User:Optionbooter about which photograph is better to use in the article's infobox. The two photos are shown at the right at the same width. I contend that while image #1 is certainly a better photograph per se, it does not work well as a Wikipedia image, as it is too dark to be effective, and takes up more vertical real estate in the article, which pushes the infobox farther down the page; I prefer image #2. (As you might have guessed, one image was taken by me, and the other was taken by Optionbooter.) Third-party opinions are needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would also like to request feedback from other authors of this article.
I changed the main image in this article to one I took:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watkins_Glen_Rainbow_Bridge_and_Falls_David_Sullivan.jpg

I did this because I believe my image conveys Watkins Glen in a more attractive way, than did the old image taken by Beyond My Ken:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watkins_Glen_08_Rainbow_Bridge_and_Falls.jpg

I would like to hear other authors opinions.
Thank you Optionbooter (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the two images mentioned by Optionbooter are the two images to the right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I should also bring up that the exposure I made (which is darker) is a more true representation of what Watkin Glen actually looks like. However, if other authors disagree, I can increase the brightness of the image. Also, if the image is too long, I can crop it to be shorter and fit better. Please leave feedback. Thank you Optionbooter (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Optionbooter is willing to make the image brighter, so that it can be seen easily, and crop it down a bit, I would have no objection to changing to his image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Beyond My Ken, is this better?

Optionbooter (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely in the ballpark, but if you can go just a bit brighter, it would be better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Glad we could come to an agreement. I would have talked with you on this article earlier but I did not know that this section existed. Thank you for your guidance. Cheers.Optionbooter (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks very good, thanks very much for being willing to work this out. (I should add that other editors can still disagree with our agreement -- but at least we have a working consensus of 2!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]