Talk:Brick Schoolhouse

Untitled

Located at 41°49′43.6″N 71°24′32.1″W Faolin42 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brick Schoolhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111142727/http://www.ppsri.org/organization/old-brick-schoolhouse to http://www.ppsri.org/organization/old-brick-schoolhouse

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dispute

An editor seems to think that this version of the article is better than this version.

Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Second version has a stronger lead, more details in history, and better image in the infobox. Filetime, why do you consider those edits "unproductive"? Schazjmd (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Um, did either of you actually communicate with the other person? Or just edit warring and templating? Maybe Filetime can elaborate on why the edits were counterproductive here and BMK can stick to WP:BRD in the meantime? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Filetime seems to have the habit of reverting edits they don't like, but in the case of other articles too, simply say 'improved' or something to that effect hiding that it's really just a revert...I think that's fairly underhanded. And in this case, clearly the edits are not only productive, but referenced too, so this is also a case of wiping cited material. Strangerpete (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I do think Filetime has a responsibility to be clearer about what the problem with the content is, since to a third party it's hard to say why they could be "unproductive". Best practice is to discuss before reverting for both parties, of course, and I think -- as the far more experienced editor -- BMK should at least ask "why" rather than just say "restore" accompanied by some templates. But I haven't dug too deeply so he may have done that and I missed it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, Schazjmd, and Kzirkel:, Beyond My Ken has persistently replaced high quality images of local structure with their own, low quality images. These photographs are visibly out of focus, exhibit poor composition, and are of lower resolution than the ones they replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filetime (talk • contribs)

Filetime, a disagreement about an image is not a reasonable excuse for deleting useful edits to an article. If you two disagree on a specific image, discuss it. Please explain why you reverted the rest of the edits (other than the image choice). Schazjmd (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: "Useful edits?" The edit by Beyond My Ken is a mess. Firstly, there is no evidence provided that the structure was built for the function of town meetings. Second of all, the wording "getting settled" is decidedly un–encyclopedic. Thirdly, there is no evidence the photo of the schoolhouse that I myself uploaded was taken in 1915 exactly. Filetime (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Filetime, your revert puts back the content stating the structure was built for the function of town meetings; BMK's edit removes it. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Which I did because the NRHP nomination form does not mention it being built for town meetings. In fact, it says explicitly that "Historically, it has a first significance in being the first brick-built, permanently-purposed school structure in Providence and one of the first free schools in the United States." [1] The word "meeting" only appears in the form in the context of "Meeting Street", it does not say anywhere that it was built for town meetings. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Other supposed issues:

• The image File:OLD MEETING STREET SCHOOL AS IT LOOKS TO-DAY.jpg that Filetime uploaded says in the date field of the information "1915", not "c.1915". [2]
• If "getting settled" is a problem, I have no objection to replacing it - but those two words are not a reason to delete all the changes I made to iimprove the article.
• "Persistently" - there are two disputes between us, here, and on Congdon Street Baptist Church.
• "Low quality" - I replaced an image where the schoolhouse was a small part of the picture with one in which it was the clear primary subject:

Original image

My replacement

Clearly, my image is not "low quality" or "out of focus" or lacking in composition or any of the other complaints made by Filetime. Their complaint is, in essence, that I replaced their photo with mine, which I would not have done if mine didn't present the subject better in the context of an infobox where the subject of the photo needs to be large enough to be easily seen. (Note that because of their different aspect rations, I had to show Filetime's image here at a larger size to make the two images equal. How they looked in the infobox can be seen by comparing this with this.

• Finally, to answer Rhododendrites' concerns, I responded the way I did because it was immediately apparent to me from the number of warnings on their talk page that Filetime was a problematic editor, and that their reaction was most probably an WP:OWNERSHIP problem. I have 110 more images from Providence to upload, and with each one I will be updating the articles connected to them, and replacing images in and only if my image is an improvement on what is already there, and I wanted to nip any problem with Filetime in the bud. I don't want to spend the next week doing this with every article on Providence I edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Filetime has now replace the infobox image with a decidely inferior image in which the schoolhouse cannot be seen through the shadows. If an admin is around, I think a block for disruptive editing is in order here. @Schazjmd, Rhododendrites, and Strangerpete:, please evaluate Filetime's latest edit and act accordingly. I'm talking this off my watchlist, as I don't have the patience to deal with an erratic editor such as them.

????

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others here. This is a chance to de-escalate and discuss. WP:BRD is in order here and I think just talking it out would lead to the best results.

As for the merits of the points brought up File:2021 Brick Schoolhouse, 24 Meeting Street, Providence.jpg is indeed out of focus and you can't read the sign on the front at all; it is a lower quality/resolution than the previous photo. Arguably, you're trying to insert a photo into the article that YOU took, BMK. Exhibiting WP:Ownership would apply as an assessment for the actions of both BMK and Filetime. Filetime, lest you think I'm taking your side, you're escalating this unnecessarily too. You say there's no evidence it's used as a meeting hall, but what your high-res shot shows (and BMK's obscures) is that it is indeed the meeting hall for the PPS.

There's EASILY room for both of your points. Back off, WP:AGF, and work together. You both have VERY similar goals for these articles and WP would be lucky to have 2 such people interested in improving such articles. Buffs (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, putting in my photo was not a priority, putting in a photo which looked good in the infobox was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The photo is blurry. Filetime (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I would concur with Filetime. The photo is objectively blurry. Saying your photo is superior is WP:OWNy. Buffs (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, you have about as much chance of being objective about anything concerning me as a gila monster has of becoming President. For the purposes of the infobox, the image is just fine. Filetime's image may be in better focus, but the composition sucked for infobox use, until I cropped it. Context is everything.

Don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read the comments, but the image on the right, the closer one, is better than the one on the left. Why should there be a quarrel over this? Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Best image for infobox

These seem to be the three images in contention:

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

• IMO, #1 is too small and distant, #2 is an odd perspective, and #3 is too dark/shadowed. If these are the only 3 contemporary photos to choose from, my preference is #2 which gives the clearest view of the building. What are others' opinions? Schazjmd (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer #2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've added a fourth image, a crop of #1. It is now my preference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with #4, big improvement (although I like the brighter colors in #2). Schazjmd (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'd say #4 is my !vote. 2 is an odd perspective, though brighter. 1 and 3 have the tree & shadows that detract from the structure (the subject of the photo) and how it appears today. Buffs (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• 2 is OK, but 4 is best. Not 3 due to shadows, definitely not 1. MB 22:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

[moved from above] On the subject of the photos, none of these are unambiguously superior to the others. The third one from 2011 with the tree in front would be my last choice of the bunch. Of the others, Filetime's is better from a technical perspective, being in focus and straight-on, but BMK's has much nicer light, making for an appealing thumbnail even if the quality isn't good at full size. Sometimes a thumbnail is good enough for a Wikipedia article even if it's not the highest quality photo. I guess I'd be very marginally in favor of the cropped version of Filetime's (#4), but the ideal here would probably be to re-edit that one to bring up the shadows and otherwise play with tones. It sounds like this isn't a stand-alone occurrence where there's been a difference of opinion between Filetime and BMK about images. I'm content to be pinged for photo opinions if it's ever useful (not that anyone is obliged to, of course). Kzirkel may be another good person to ask, given his experience taking photos of the RI area in particular. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: Following what I wrote above, I just went and spiffed up #4 a bit (original, new). Filetime if you don't like the edits, please revert (or if you'd like to reprocess yourself, revert mine). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: This looks great! Filetime (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree with this one; updated the infobox. If you disagree, please feel free to revert and we can discuss some more. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)