Talk:Embers Avenue/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Image
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Graywalls: I've removed your image. Sorry, but there are better ones available at Commons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, if you think the second image in the Hawks PDX should be removed, then you should be ok with this short article not having two similar images as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
What a coincidence that those "better ones" you're referencing are taken by you, thus repeating my concern about your grandiose attitude towards others.The article doesn't exist to appease to aesthetics senses of Another Believer. First and foremost is the encyclopedic value. Secondary is the subjective quality. Quite frankly, I'm not a fan of your composition. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, You're welcome to ask others if they prefer your image over the others at Commons. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- The current photo is much better. Brighter colors, shows the marquee, not crooked, higher resolution. Reywas92Talk 18:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, I've removed the image from the article (again). ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't replace the current image. The image serves the purpose to show the 2018 plan didn't happen. because it is still vacant; and I put in a different photo. I stated the purpose of the photo and what it represents. Now, your objection to the addition? Graywalls (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, There are way better image at Wikimedia Commons. Please stop going against consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Show me a better 2019 photo. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I'm not going back and forth with you again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously you act like you own the article. Show me ANY 2019 photo for that matter. Graywalls (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Facepalm ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're edit warring again. Another Believer. You just reverted me again on something else. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, Do not add the image back unless editors come to a new consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're edit warring again. Another Believer. You just reverted me again on something else. Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously you act like you own the article. Show me ANY 2019 photo for that matter. Graywalls (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, I'm not going back and forth with you again. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Show me a better 2019 photo. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Graywalls, There are way better image at Wikimedia Commons. Please stop going against consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't replace the current image. The image serves the purpose to show the 2018 plan didn't happen. because it is still vacant; and I put in a different photo. I stated the purpose of the photo and what it represents. Now, your objection to the addition? Graywalls (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, I've removed the image from the article (again). ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- The new photo added is again dark and grainy and is unnecessarily vertical/cropped. It does not add to the article, and it does not require a duplicate image of the name on the building to state the fact that it is still vacant. Stop being petulant and go add photos to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Portland, Oregon instead (preferably taken during the day). Reywas92Talk
- @Reywas92: Graywalls is banned from interacting with me. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion and the one below should be archived, but I won't do so if you oppose for any reason. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Go ahead Reywas92Talk 05:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Reywas92, Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Go ahead Reywas92Talk 05:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Reywas92: Graywalls is banned from interacting with me. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion and the one below should be archived, but I won't do so if you oppose for any reason. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
order
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What was the justification to switch orders from long standing sequence? I disagree with it. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course you do. I think we should first describe the venue before providing a historical overview, especially since the history section ends with a closure, so this way the information is presented in chronological order. I'm basing this on articles about similar venues, but of course I'm open to the opinions of other editors, and really this article just needs to be fleshed out more in general. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this change, at least until the article has more content. Then, I hope the "Description" and "History" headings will be restored. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Archiving per interaction ban. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)