Talk:Roma Street Parkland

Redirect suggestion
Put this material within Brisbane with a redirect, and folks will see it. Wetman 17:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suspect claim
What is the basis for the statement in the article that "Roma Street Parkland is possibly the world's largest subtropical garden in a city centre" ? Can this be verified? How do "subtropical gardens" differ from tropical gardens, or other gardens, for that matter ? Paddington62 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Panorama photos of the Roma Street Parkland
Can I suggest that an elevated panorama shot of the gardens could be taken at the top of Countess Street (ie from the Normanby Fiveways) Paddington62 07:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you take such a photo for Wikipedia, please? Thanks.  Figaro 15:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, next time I'm up in Brisbane.Paddington62 08:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, taking panorama photos of the gardens might prove to be a bit difficult (for the most part), because of the high rise buildings which are now in place between Normanby Fiveways and the gardens. Figaro 10:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous poster, with the ID number of 220.253.85.26, cleared the article of all photographs which I had put on the page, complaining that the photos on the Roma Street Parkland article were not good enough quality for him &mdash; with the added comment that none of the photos were panorama photos. The removal of every single photograph from the page by this poster, meant that nobody who visited the article on Wikipedia would be able to see what the Roma Street Parkland looked like.

I returned the photos to the article, and this action led to an outcry (by 220.253.92.188 who had previously posted under the ID number of 220.253.85.26) on the Talk:Brisbane page (the discussion page for the Brisbane article), with the anonymous poster complaining that I had returned the photos which he/she had removed.

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an ordinary camera to be able to take panorama photos, and I had already given links to a website which has panorama views of the parkland, and which can be viewed by anyone reading the article. Apart from the panorama scenes given on the website, free domain photos, taken by ordinary cameras, will have to suffice to show people what the beautiful gardens and parkland areas of the Roma Street Parkland are like. I would like to comment that, at the time that I took the photos, I had never heard of Wikipedia. I took photos of scenery I thought was beautiful during my only visit, so far, to the Roma Street Parkland, and added the photos to the Wikipedia article (which has been mostly edited by myself), so that other people would know what the parkland looked like. It is hurtful to have my photos described by 220.253.92.188 as being of poor quality, and also very hurtful for that poster to delete every single one of my photos from the page, especially as my intention was to share what photos I had with other people. The photos were taken by an ordinary shutter camera, because, at that time, I did not have a digital camera. I am hoping to be able to visit the Roma Street Parkland again, sometime in the future, and take digital photos of the parkland for Wikipedia. Such photos, though, would not be panorama photos, as I am not a professional photographer and I do not have the type of camera which would be required to take panoramic views of the parkland.

If 220.253.92.188 is so keen to have panorama photos on the article page, perhaps he/she would like to join Wikipedia and also begin contributing free domain photos of his/her own. After all, he/she seems to think that panorama photos would be easy to take. Figaro 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, calm down Figaro. Yes, I deleted all of your pics. The basic problem was that you were not using a digital camera, and the scans just are not good quality. Also, no one should use Wikipedia as de facto  on line photo album, which posting 10 pics indicated you are inclined to do. The 5 pics you have left is more reasonable, although they are still low quality scans by the looks, and I think in terms of what they show maybe only 3 are worth keeping in my opinion. As for panoramic shots, I just meant that you were posting pics of just garden beds and stuff that give the visitor no idea of the size of the park. A couple of your new pics do that, so it is an improvement. You will also find that it is relatively easy to "stitch" together 2 digital pics with various software to make one panoramic image, but as I say that was not really my point.


 * Obviously, your decree that the photos should be taken by a digital camera cannot possibly be applicable to every single photo on Wikipedia. And since an analogue camera must be accepted for some photos and photos within some articles in Wikipedia, why do you feel that photos taken by an analogue camera are not acceptable for all articles?


 * It was rude and uncivil of you to remove every single photo in the manner that you did.


 * I also note that you have not accepted the invitation to join Wikipedia, and to submit your own photographs of the Roma Street Parkland to Wikipedia. Also, your opinion is your opinion.  This does not qualify the opinion as an objective arbiter of what should be in the article.


 * As a final comment, it is polite to sign your comments. This can be done by typing four tildes at the end of your message (see message at the bottom of the edit page when you are editing a talk or discussion page).   Figaro 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With respect, Wikipedia is not a photo album. I'm sorry Figaro, but most of these photos are really quite uninteresting.  I think that your photo album would be more at home on Commons, than here. Lankiveil 02:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Photos of Roma Street Parkland
I had originally been intending to revisit Roma Street Parklands, and take new photos of the parkland using a digital camera (to replace the photos which used to be on this page), so that Wikipedia would have good quality photos which would demonstrate the beauty of the gardens and parkland areas.

However, with the criticism which has directed at my photos on the page, I removed the photos (so that they would no longer offend those people's sensibilities about what photos should look like, or what the photos should represent etc. etc., and I no longer feel any need to provide such photos for the article - as evidentally people would prefer no photos at all on the article). Figaro 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to restore two of the garden photos - for the benefit of those people who are genuinely interested in what the parkland looks like. Figaro 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article looks pretty good now. These photos are all good quality, and they don't overpower the article.  A job well done, Figaro! Lankiveil 06:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your comment. Figaro 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I know the photos on this page has caused many comments, but I feel I may be able to conribute. I have taken about 300 photos of the Roma St Parklands of which most are of a very high quality. If Figaro has no issues with it, shall I post a couple up for viewing? I have a small selection at Pbase Roma St Parklands Album. I'm sure I have some which are of a over of the park and some detail of the interesting parts of the park. I'll check back here every now and then to see if there is any response. --23kev 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no issue at all. It would be good to have some more photos of the parkland.  Figaro 10:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added four photos which I think are fairly representative of the parklands. I hope its OK that I removed yours Figaro, please edit the page if you want yours up there still. --23kev 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I had actually meant for you to add your photos to the page as part of a photo gallery - not delete mine (plus deleting a photo of the Parkland from Lil Miss Fail) to make way for your photos. The deletion of other people's photos in order to add your own, is a rude and arrogant thing to do - including your issuing of an 'invitation' for me "to return my photos to the page - if I wanted them there still".  Obviously you don't think that my photos are good enough (apart from my photo of the sign).


 * I have now added the photo gallery which I had assumed that YOU would do when you submitted your own photos to the page, and have returned both Lil Miss Fail photo and my photos to the page. Figaro 21:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Figaro, I am so very sorry for offending you and Lil Miss Fail. If you care to have a look at my profile this was my first page edit, so therefore this small edit was a bit of a struggle. I do admit I should have added my photos to the page but was unaware of being able to put them into a gallery. I felt that having 9 photos in a list made the page and all the photos look long and unneeded. Again, I apologise, I'll never edit another page that you have previously contributed to. --Kev 22:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. I'm sorry for being so hasty and judgemental.  Please do keep donating photos to Wikipedia (including those many pages which I have contributed to) - your photos are very welcome.  I should have mentioned about the photo gallery to you when I wrote earlier and I apologise about my oversight (in fact I would have done better to have actually created a photo gallery at that time) :-).  All the best. Figaro 01:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Missing photo
One of the photos which was contributed by Kev to this article, was deleted (perhaps accidentally) some time ago by somebody (although there is no 'deletion log' given in conjunction with this - as would normally be the case).

After waiting for several months for the image to be returned, I have finally deleted the blank frame which was left in its place. The information about the image is still on the article and can be reinstated if, and when, the image is returned to Wikipedia. Figaro 17:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)