Talk:Green-Wood Cemetery

message: Several weeks ago I snapped this picture and like it better than the existing head picture. However, I hesitate to paste mine in, lest it show that my judgment is clouded by pride. Other opinions? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front gate complex picture 

message: Hi All, I think there should be a mention of the origin of the name 'Green-Wood' in the History section.  Is it two persons, one with surname Green, the other Wood?  Or, more likely I suspect, a site that originally was a green wooded area.  If not known, perhaps a statement, 'The origin of the name 'Green-Wood' is unknown.'  Thanks.  SaturnCat (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name 'Green-Wood'? 

message: I'm looking for some input on photographs. User:Beyond My Ken has placed his image on this page. This photograph is of poor technical quality: exhibiting overexposure, a crooked crop, and numerous jpeg artifacts. I personally believe a photograph like this one, this one, or any one of the 83 quality images would be a more suitable primary representation of the cemetery. Any thoughts. Filetime (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have opened an RfC to settle this issue fairly and with the participation of more editors then would normally read this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: Should the lede image be changed from Image #1 to Image #2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also have no objection to including #2 in the article, although a cropped-in version of it would serve the purpose better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: * A new image of the gate would be amazing. Thank you. Filetime (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording he has used is pretty clear, be basically says the same thing, just phrased differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *On the other hand, Filetime has made it a habit to replace images which are of practical use and reasonable technical quality, and which fulfill their function in an article, with images which are of better technical quality, but less visual quality and do not sevre the necessary function nearly as well.  The only criteria Filetime appears to use are purely technical ones, and they pay little or no attention to the purpose of an image in its article. This is a detriment to the article, and a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *Regarding my "plastering" of images I've taken, according to this counter, 3,288 of my images are in use on en.Wiki.  Since I've been here for 16 years (as of June 26), that works out to 205.5 images per year.  Filetime, on the other hand, has 1,241 images in use on en.Wiki.  They've been here for 1.25 years, so that works out to be 992.8 images per year.  If Filetime continues to add images to articles at the rate they're going at now, by the time they've been here 16 years, as I have, they will have almost 16,000 images in use on en.wiki. There's no reason, of course, that Filetime shouldn't add their images to articles if it's appropriate to do so, and, pace Filetime, the same goes for me as well, but if the charge of "plastering images [in] dozens and dozens of articles" is going to be thrown around, it would seem more appropriate to apply the charge to Filetime than to me, given these numbers.I suggest that Filetime cut back on their hyperbole and commit themselves to dealing with other editors as collaborators and not as competitors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  See option 3. My point is not (and was never) to promote option 2 as the "right" image or one I was wedded to but rather to emphasize that a subject with so many quality images should not be represented by such a technically poor image. Filetime (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hard to have a discussion when the question keeps changing. pburka (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Filetime keeps adding images.  It is not allowed for another editor to change an RfC's question.  I have removed image #3, which was not a part of my question. As for whether Filetimie was putting image #2 forward as the "right" image, obviously they were, becaue they put it into the infobox replacing the current image.  They wouldn;t do that if they didn't think it was the right image -- unless their purpose was simply to remove any image made by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: No, I did not "ulilaterally create a dichotomy", you did that when you replaced the current image (#1) with the replacement image (#2).  I wanted to get the community's opinion about that, which is why I started an RfC and asked the question that I did. Again, you cannot add images above, as they are not part of the question I asked.  I've moved your Image #3 to the discussion area, below.  Feel free to add other images there if you wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Image 3 seems inferior, too. The sky is oversaturated, but more importantly it's a picture of the gates looking out of the cemetery. This is an unusual perspective. While it might be visually interesting, it's also confusing. pburka (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this seems a bit Disney to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Wonderful images. I'd get behind any of these. Thank you so much for your initiative {{reply to}|Rhododendrites}}. Filetime (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image (53784p cropped) would be the best of these, although I would prefer a tighter crop for infobox use, similar to the current image.  Thanks for providing new options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll vote for the second one as is.  I lake the slightly wider view.  Thanks for doing this. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The ultra–tight crop uploaded by BMK is too closely cropped for an infobox. The article is not about the gate, it is about the cemetery as a whole. Filetime (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Lede image

message: *No - The current image depicts the main gate of the cemetery, a particularly distinctive architectural structure.  While the mausoleum depicted in the suggested replacement is also architecturally interesting, it is presented at much too small a size with too much surrounding area to be a strong visual introduction tot he cemetery. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I also have no objection to including #2 in the article, although a cropped-in version of it would serve the purpose better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: * A new image of the gate would be amazing. Thank you. Filetime (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording he has used is pretty clear, be basically says the same thing, just phrased differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *BMK has plastered his own images in the lead of dozens and dozens of articles on New York when very often quality and even featured images of these subjects (by third party photographers) exist. For no article with such a rich selection of images should we have to resort to these pixelated and often out of focus photographs. Furthermore, multiple editors (see the most recent incident) have expressed concern that the user's edit behaviors verge on Ownership. Filetime (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *On the other hand, Filetime has made it a habit to replace images which are of practical use and reasonable technical quality, and which fulfill their function in an article, with images which are of better technical quality, but less visual quality and do not sevre the necessary function nearly as well.  The only criteria Filetime appears to use are purely technical ones, and they pay little or no attention to the purpose of an image in its article. This is a detriment to the article, and a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

text: *Regarding my "plastering" of images I've taken, according to this counter, 3,288 of my images are in use on en.Wiki.  Since I've been here for 16 years (as of June 26), that works out to 205.5 images per year.  Filetime, on the other hand, has 1,241 images in use on en.Wiki.  They've been here for 1.25 years, so that works out to be 992.8 images per year.  If Filetime continues to add images to articles at the rate they're going at now, by the time they've been here 16 years, as I have, they will have almost 16,000 images in use on en.wiki. There's no reason, of course, that Filetime shouldn't add their images to articles if it's appropriate to do so, and, pace Filetime, the same goes for me as well, but if the charge of "plastering images [in] dozens and dozens of articles" is going to be thrown around, it would seem more appropriate to apply the charge to Filetime than to me, given these numbers.I suggest that Filetime cut back on their hyperbole and commit themselves to dealing with other editors as collaborators and not as competitors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  See option 3. My point is not (and was never) to promote option 2 as the "right" image or one I was wedded to but rather to emphasize that a subject with so many quality images should not be represented by such a technically poor image. Filetime (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's hard to have a discussion when the question keeps changing. pburka (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Filetime keeps adding images.  It is not allowed for another editor to change an RfC's question.  I have removed image #3, which was not a part of my question. As for whether Filetimie was putting image #2 forward as the "right" image, obviously they were, becaue they put it into the infobox replacing the current image.  They wouldn;t do that if they didn't think it was the right image -- unless their purpose was simply to remove any image made by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: No, I did not "ulilaterally create a dichotomy", you did that when you replaced the current image (#1) with the replacement image (#2).  I wanted to get the community's opinion about that, which is why I started an RfC and asked the question that I did. Again, you cannot add images above, as they are not part of the question I asked.  I've moved your Image #3 to the discussion area, below.  Feel free to add other images there if you wish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Image 3 seems inferior, too. The sky is oversaturated, but more importantly it's a picture of the gates looking out of the cemetery. This is an unusual perspective. While it might be visually interesting, it's also confusing. pburka (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this seems a bit Disney to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Wonderful images. I'd get behind any of these. Thank you so much for your initiative {{reply to}|Rhododendrites}}. Filetime (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image (53784p cropped) would be the best of these, although I would prefer a tighter crop for infobox use, similar to the current image.  Thanks for providing new options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll vote for the second one as is.  I lake the slightly wider view.  Thanks for doing this. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The ultra–tight crop uploaded by BMK is too closely cropped for an infobox. The article is not about the gate, it is about the cemetery as a whole. Filetime (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: : Image 3 seems inferior, too. The sky is oversaturated, but more importantly it's a picture of the gates looking out of the cemetery. This is an unusual perspective. While it might be visually interesting, it's also confusing. pburka (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this seems a bit Disney to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Another suggested replacement

message: Green-Wood Cemetery gate (53784p).jpg
Green-Wood Cemetery gate (53784p) cropped.jpg
Green-Wood Cemetery gate (53753p).jpg
I took these earlier today. They're all panoramas with a good amount of detail (not that that matters so much in an infobox). The second is a crop of the first. I was more or less happy with the light conditions and quality, although I would've loved to move the bikes and car. Oh well. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful images. I'd get behind any of these. Thank you so much for your initiative {{reply to}|Rhododendrites}}. Filetime (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The second image (53784p cropped) would be the best of these, although I would prefer a tighter crop for infobox use, similar to the current image.  Thanks for providing new options. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll vote for the second one as is.  I lake the slightly wider view.  Thanks for doing this. Carptrash (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The ultra–tight crop uploaded by BMK is too closely cropped for an infobox. The article is not about the gate, it is about the cemetery as a whole. Filetime (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly uploaded options

message: While I don't have a big dog in this hunt, I think the article's section for "In Popular Culture" should be reserved for references to the cemetery in movies, books etc. and not its use as a location for film/television productions. That seems to be how "in popular culture" is used on other Wikipedia pages which I have seen. I'm in favor of a section devoted to its use as a location for movies and television, and if one is created I would add HBO's Angels in America to it, and can provide a citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankenab (talk • contribs) 14:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Every major location in New York has been the site of a bunch of movies/tv/music videos/whatnot. If it's a movie about that location or fully set in that location, I could maybe see adding it. But "X scene in Y movie was filmed here" just seems like unnecessary trivia. Perhaps better for the article on that movie. Especially true when it's just used for a generic cemetery or some other cemetery rather than Green-Wood Cemetery. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously disagree.  Many articles list what films or television shows have been shot in that particular location, and the notion that IPC sections should not include these is neither policy nor practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Over at MOS:POPCULT there's . And then this earlier RfC, which was launched from a disagreement you were involved with. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

text: If you know of articles which list films or television shows which have been shot in that article's location, and listed them under a section called "In Popular Culture," please cite them. It might be best to move them to compliance with standards. Frank Lynch (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Popular Culture" vs. Filming Locations