Talk:Vaucluse, New South Wales

Non-Notable Photographs

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files re: WP:NOT. Specifically: 4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles

Previous Discussion:

IMO, the edit by Timmccloud is credible and appropriate here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't consider it unpersuasive at all. Also, I am not sure what you were trying to achieve with those links either (sorry). I said in the edit summary, my concern is that by only showing images of heritage listed homes, et cetera, we are not accurately illustrating the article. Now obviously we can't include a photo of every building, but if we can at least attempt to show a somewhat broader cross-section, I think that is better. If only mansions or heritage listed homes can be shown, where does the leave us with the newer suburbs? In Sydney, the suburb of Kellyville is almost entirely comprised of new development houses, none of which have heritage value or are "notable" aspects of architecture as standalone dwellings. But this is the predominant architectural style, so do we just not include any photographs illustrating this article? With Vaucluse, should we only show manors built prior to the 20th century? If this is some kind of policy, it needs to be changed. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My intention was simply to suggest plausibly helpful links.

If this modest effort was ineffective, please give it no further thought. --Tenmei (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming an edit war OSX, you have been reverted multiple times and still persist. Please stop, or the next time your activity will be reported to the administrators. Thank you for your fine photographs but Wikipedia is Not a forum for your photography portfolio, and wikipedia has Notability Guidelines for inclusion into articles - your examples aren't notable. Timmccloud (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Timmccloud, your rudeness and act of bad faith simply made my day. I reverted once—yes once—not "multiple times" as you suggest. If you are talking about this edit as well, then take a look at the IP involved, 137.82.200.96, a vandal who went through and mass-reverted several edits for no reason. I reverted your edit once, certainly not edit warring, whereas you reverted twice.

If we followed WP:NOT in this case, most suburb articles would contain no images at all because most suburbs do not contain heritage listed mansions. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, illustrating a suburb by photos isn't just photos of heritage houses. Even this article has notable cemetery photos, a lighthouse, the signal station, and a photo of diamond bay. Brighton, Melbourne has the beach houses for another example. But Vaucluse does have heritage listed houses, that are notable in their own right (Vaucluse House, The Hermitage) that are mentioned in the article, that have historical significance to the suburb, so it makes sense that they appear. On the other hand, what significance does the house at 8 bell street have to the article? Or the apartments at 43–45 Vaucluse Road? I agree wholeheartedly that they are nice pictures, and I agree they are in Vaucluse. But they don't add anything of significance to the article, they don't illustrate an important point in the article, they are not even mentioned in the article, and that's where we should draw a line. Otherwise an argument can be had for dozens of houses, or for why that house and not this house, or all the houses, or even MY flat at 1/4 Ethel street (and that is a non-notable residence if there ever was one). And random samples don't work in a suburb where the property values are so high that everyone tries to outdo the house next door. Find a photo that illustrates the article, or visually expands on the points raised in it and I will enjoy it's inclusion. Timmccloud (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This dispute has been brought up at the WikiProject Australia noticeboard, so I thought I'd chime in with my take on things. Hopefully I can be of some assistance. Firstly, I feel like the notion of notability is being confused with something else here. Our notability guidelines indicate which topics are suitable for stand alone articles, but the content of articles is dictated by other policies and guidelines. There is, in fact, a policy that deals directly with the issue at hand: Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries, which indicates how galleries should generally be used, and what can be done to make them most effective.

As for the issue at hand, I feel it would be best if everyone took a step back and relaxed a bit. Although some of the reverts have been unhelpful (particularly those where edit summaries are being used to continue the dispute), everyone here has been acting in good faith. Furthermore, I cannot see any egregious violations of content-related policies here (from either those removing or those adding the images). Therefore, instead of having a debate about whether existing policies and guidelines support the inclusion of these images or not, I feel a discussion about how best to use the gallery in the context of the article would be more appropriate. Policies and guidelines aren't intended to substitute for reasonable editorial discussion.  -- Lear's Fool 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the idea of randomly selecting photos of 4 houses (complete with addresses) is absolutely not appropriate for wikipedia. It smacks of WP:OR, infringes those owners right to privacy (WP:BLP) and adds very little to the article. If you want to try to convey the message that not every house in the suburb is a heritage listed mansion, then a broader, less intrusive photo of the area, not of a specific house MAY be OK, but you are better off realising that EVERY article highlights the uniqueness of each area, not the standard. Do I think that every bridge in Sydney is as grand as the harbour bridge? Do I think that every cricket ground in Melbourne seats 100,000? Of course not, so having a few photos of heritage listed mansions in suburb doesn't make me think that every house in the suburb is like that. The only other units that I know of in the suburb that MIGHT be suitable for a individual photo is the one from The Block tv show. The-Pope (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lear's, thank you, your reference to the Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries policy helped illustrate what my point is: "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". I don't have a problem with the photos, they are actually quite good; however I don't feel that their simple inclusion with an address is encyclopedic. Maybe a sentence or two explaining "not all houses are mansions, as seen in this fine example from xxx...". In the case of the current gallery, every photo depicts and expands on a specific mention on the article. The "random" house photos don't represent any encyclopedic content of the article, and seemed to exist just to appear in the article. Combined with the fact that it happens to be the editors personal photos, it is getting really close to WP:OC in my mind. And thank you Lear's for recognizing that this type of discussion is what I desired, not an edit war. Timmccloud (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Saw this dispute on WP:AWNB I did a couple of minor edits to the text, the thing is that expansin of the article text enables greater diversity of images to be included within the article, but its inapropriate to identify addresses of non-notable buildings even notable one should only have a street name. Overall the aricle should have a balance of images that reflects the burbs demographics, if that means that not all individually notable buildings have a photo so be it, thats the advantage of wikilinks and {{main}} links. When I go out and take photographs specifically for an article I just post a gallery on the talk page and let others decide what if any they use and where they place themeg. Gnangarra 03:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea of posting the gallery on the talk page and letting the editors discuss what to include or not via consensus. And absolutely agree with your suggestion on the addresses Gnan, in fact we should take it further and also verify that for private houses the property owners provide permission for the image use in order not to be sued. Currently there is the release by the photographer (OSX) but I see nothing in the meta data about the property owners permissions to use the photos. Here is the gallery in question: Timmccloud (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Timmccloud There is no requirement for a photographer to seek permission from anyone to take a photograph in a public place Freedom of Panaroma is protected by the Copyright act(1968). Gnangarra 08:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
  House, 8 Bell Street
• 
  House, 73 Wentworth Road
• 
  House, 58 Wharf Road
• 
  Mansion/apartments, 43–45 Vaucluse Road

The photos in the gallery are of decent quality and as long as they are kept to a minimum in the articles (3 to 4) I would not have any objection to their inclusion. What I do object to is the inclusion of the address and the the name of the street in the caption. Gnanarra mentioned that it would be okay to mention the street name but not the number of the house in the captions. I still don't think that this is a good idea as a would be intruder could still find the house. Instead we could follow the example of some of the other suburban photograph captions discussing the actual style of house and the architecture. It may be okay to include the name of the street with some of the more notable houses as there addresses may have already been made public. Also instead of taking photos of individual houses why not try to take in a bit more of the street, (see one of my examples or the housing photo in the Punchbowl, New South Wales article) so the photos are less intrusive to the individual home owner and allows the reader to gain a better understanding of how the area may look. ***Adam*** 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please re-read I said street name for notable building like Vaucluse House, not for "a typical" burb style of house. On a side issue please ensure your signature links back to your user page Gnangarra 08:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

@Timmccloud In Australia we enjoy "freedom of panorama". You can take any non-voyeuristic image you want from a public place so we don't need the owner's permission to use photos of their house if the photo has been taken from a public place. There's a discussion on this here. I was pointed to it by a solicitor who's a keen photographer. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would it help the article to include a pronunciation key? Google tells me it's pronounced Vorcluze, with the first syllable being vor-, not vow- or voe-; and the second syllable being more of a z than an s. Can any locals verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.125.55 (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, and as you said the z is not pronouced very strongly, listen to the pronounciation here. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sydneycityscape.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)