Talk:Western Gulf coastal grasslands

Untitled

In the text, it is stated that Attwater's Prairie-Chicken was placed on the " 'endangered species list' in 1967". The link goes to the USA Endangered Species Act, which was not passed until 1973. I can't tell what the purpose is here, nor how to clear it up. Bluestem (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing gallery because of WP:IG

• 
  McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Texas, USA (30 April 2010).
• 
  Marysee Prairie Preserve, County Road 2077, Liberty County, Texas, USA (22 May 2020).
• 
  Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge, Chambers County, Texas, USA (1 December 2018).
• 
  Texas bluebonnets (Lupinus texensis), Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado County, Texas, USA (29 March 2019).
• 
  Texas bullnettle & plains coreopsis, Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Co., TX, USA (3 May 2018).
• 
  Crested caracara (Caracara plancus) Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado County, Texas, USA (24 May 2014).
• 
  Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado County, Texas, USA (11 November 2017).
• 
  Brazos Bend State Park, Fort Bend County, Texas, USA (8 December 2010).
• 
  Saltmarsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata), Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge, Brazoria County, Texas, USA (24 August 2013).
• 
  San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge, Brazoria County, Texas, USA (12 December 2016).
• 
  Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Aransas County, Texas, USA (27 November 2011).
• 
  Padre Island National Seashore, Kleberg County, Texas, USA (26 November 2011).
• 
  Spanish Dagger (Yucca treculeana), Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, Cameron County, Texas, USA (12 April 2016).
• 
  Harris's Hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) on the road to Mezquital, Municipality of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico (18 March 2009).
• 
  Grassland habitat on the road to Mezquital, Municipality of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico (18 March 2009).

I transwiki'ed the gallery to Commons, because of the image gallery guideline, which states Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. and Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. The gallery did not follow the guideline, so I moved it to Commons. I will restore my edit, but happy to discuss further. — hike395 (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The gallery does indeed follow the WP:IG guidelines if you read it in its entirety. Your interpretation seems to be based on two lines selected from eight paragraphs, and clearly not any consideration or understanding of the images in the gallery. The gallery is anything but an indiscriminate collection of images. It is carefully considered, well-crafted and avoids similar or repetitive images. Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily). If galleries are suitable one genus of plant (lilies), then a gallery is suitable for an entire ecoregion spanning hundreds of miles through two countries, temperate and subtropical areas, and supporting thousands of plant and animal species. I think the gallery would benefit with the addition of a few more images from Mexico and a Louisiana.

The 15 images illustrate nearly the full range of the ecoregion, arranged north to south, from the Texas/Louisiana border well into Mexico (ca. 500 mi.), two countries, two states, and 10 different counties and municipalities. Temporally, six months are represented, including all four seasons. Temperate and subtropical areas are shown. Ten different parks, preserves, and wildlife refuges illustrate a diversity of natural habitats, vegetation zones, and grasslands that cannot be easily or adequately described by text. A contrasting and wide variety of native grass species, plants, and wildflowers (some identified) can be seen in the images. Grasslands near the Gulf Coast and on barrier islands are shown, as are areas where the grasslands begin to transition into peripheral ecoregions like the pine forest to the north, the post-oak savannah in the west, and the Tamaulipan scrubland in the south are all represented. WiLaFa (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What distinguishes useful galleries is that they support and are integrated with the text. For example, in Lilium, there are small image galleries for several of the divisions of the genus. Galleries are not the only way to accomplish this, for example, in Marmot and Callospermophilus, species are described in tables, where each species has a corresponding image. Again, the images support the text and visa versa.

In contrast, the gallery above is not integrated at all with the text, nor does it support the material. As the creator of the gallery and photographer of all of the images, the curation may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to a typical reader. It appears to be a number of similar open grassy fields, several of which were taken from Attwater Prairie Chicken National Wildlife Refuge. A couple of birds are shown. There is no context which relates the images back to the rest of the article: which sub-ecoregions are these taken from? What are they meant to show? The captions provide (IMO) too much detail about the individual photographs, and no context about the photographs. The two sentences I highlighted in the guideline are meant to describe the weakness of the gallery (as currently designed, with captions as currently written).

What other ecoregion articles often do is place individual images into subsections (following WP:IG), where the image illustrates a particular sub-ecoregion or ecosystem element. For example, Great Basin Desert has a number of photographs that each illustrate a biological community or subregion. Ecology of the Rocky Mountains shows images from biological communities, plus a number of examples of fauna from the Rocky Mountains (in the appropriate section, per MOS:SECTIONLOC). If you selected an image for each of the subregions, and place it into the corresponding article section, then the article would obey WP:IG and it would be very helpful to our readers. As it stands, the images don't help our readers. — hike395 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding a gallery of photographs of Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands to an article about Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands seems like a good idea to me, that makes common sense, and improves Wikipedia. [Rules]

• Removing gallery because of WP:IG. 1. Wikipedia: Five pillars, Wikipedia has no firm rules. WP:5P5. 2. Ignore all rules WP:IARESSAYS. 3. See Wikipedia Rules flow chart diagram, (right).

I have been creating galleries for Wikipedia for several years, including many like you describe above. Four years ago, when the gallery was added to this article there was no text on the subregions. The text on subregions was just added a few weeks ago. This page doesn't lend itself to galleries like Marmot and Callospermophilus. Those tables with images contain little information in relation to the size and space they use, and I’m not a fan of them (but I don’t go around deleting them). The Great Basin Desert and Ecology of the Rocky Mountains articles that you hold up as exemplary, are both in conflict with MOS:SECTIONLOC, An image causes a paragraph break (i.e., the current paragraph ends and a new one begins) so it is not possible to place an image within a paragraph and MOS:SANDWICH, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. However, I would never be so presumptuous as to go in and delete all of the images in those articles because of that.

Please note that this article is on the Western Gulf coastal grasslands. The heading “EPA Level IV ecoregions” and the text under that heading [the subregions], have been cut and pasted verbatim from a U S Geological Survey poster about the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Western Gulf coastal grasslands and the Western Gulf Coastal Plain are not synonymous. The grasslands (this article) are some (but not all) of the subregions on the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. The subregions of the Western Gulf Coastal Plain also include forest and swamps in the north and semiarid thorn-scrub in the south. The images in the gallery were selected to illustrate the grasslands (this article), not all the other subregions of the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. It is unfortune that Wikipedia has ended up with the World Wildlife Fund’s system as its default for ecoregions. The World Wildlife Fund system is a rather over simplified, pop-since, composite of other, more rigorous literature.

With all due respect, I find you your comments and arguments such as: nor does it support the material; It appears to be a number of similar open grassy fields; There is no context which relates the images back to the rest of the article; What are they meant to show?; and the images don't help our readers, are lacking common sense and at times somewhat disingenuous. Thousands have viewed this page since the gallery was added four years ago and no one has commented, made any changes, or made an issue of it but you. The relevance of the images is self-evident and obvious to anyone. A gallery of grassland images in a grassland article is in no way an indiscriminate collection of images and are not in conflict with WP:IG. I suspect 90% of the readers who visit this page do not read the text on the subregion. I suspect 90% of the readers do read the introduction and scroll through the gallery. Your argument is fundamentally about a subjective interpretation of the meaning of “a cluster of images”. The removal of the gallery degrades, not improves, the article. I think you are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia and its readers by removing the gallery.

One suggestion would be to insert the numbers (34a -34j), or possibly the full names of the subregion into the corresponding image captions, but again, the images only represent the grasslands, not the forest, swamps, and scrublands of the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Changing the name of the article to Western Gulf Coastal Plain and adjusting the text accordingly would be an improvement but, I do not have the time to work on that now.

• If you selected an image for each of the subregions, and place it into the corresponding article section, then the article would obey WP:IG. Wikipedia has no firm rules WP:5P5. Also, WP:IG. Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. There is not space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text, most of the paragraphs are too short. Placing the images with the corresponding text would cause paragraph breaks, conflicting with MOS:SECTIONLOC. Following WP:IG, that you quoted, this is in fact the and explicit and exact circumstance where a gallery is appropriate. As I said in the first sentence of my first reply, The gallery does indeed follow the WP:IG guidelines if you read it in its entirety.

• What distinguishes useful galleries is that they support and are integrated with the text. Galleries are not integrated with the text, that is what they are, a space for images distinguished from the text, and galleries are perfectly apt in Wikipedia articles.

• Again, the images support the text and visa versa. Yes, a gallery of photographs of Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands support the text in an article about Western Gulf Coastal Grasslands and visa versa.

• the curation may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to a typical reader. It is perfectly obvious to the reader that the images show the Western Gulf Coast Grasslands, flora, and fauna in a variety of localities and seasons.

• It appears to be a number of similar open grassy fields. That is what grasslands are and what they look like, open grassy fields. Specifically, natural and protected areas showing a variety of diversity and contrast.

• What are they meant to show? The grasslands and some of the flora and fauna, with links in the captions to the specific places and species represented. WiLaFa (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we're at an impasse: neither of us is convincing each other. I'll do two things:

1. I will attempt to integrate some of the images into the corresponding article text, per your suggestions above. I believe I can do it without introducing artificial paragraph breaks.
2. I will attempt to get further participation by posting to relevant WikiProjects.

Please note, however, that accusing me of being disingenuous is not assuming good faith. I truly believe that the gallery (above) has too many similar images and does not support the text. — hike395 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Later --- I restored 7 of the 15 images into appropriate places in the text and did not introduce any paragraph breaks (per MOS:SECTIONLOC). Note also that the original gallery is still available at Commons (c:Western Gulf coastal grasslands), linked from this article. @Wilafa: is this acceptable to you, or should we get more editors to look at the issue? — hike395 (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize if you were offended, but honestly, I don’t know what to make of questions like:

“What are they meant to show?”, “no context which relates the images”, “nor does it support the material” and “the images don't help our readers”. I am sure it is all perfectly obvious and self-evident to the average reader (evidenced in many years without any changes or comments on the gallery). You have taken it upon yourself to post your changes without any agreement or resolution. I simply do not have the time to deal with this now. I will make some changes in the near future, swapping out and adding some images, and changing some captions.

Ecology and geography are growing somewhat confused and muddled in this article. A bias for the US is increasingly evident while Mexico is marginalized with each edit. Again, the Western Gulf Coastal Grassland and the Western Gulf Coastal Plain are not synonymous. The grasslands are predominantly an ecological concept. The coastal plain is more of a geographic unit supporting several diverse ecologies. The US Geological Survey poster that the map and subregion text were taken from is limited to the US. However, the grasslands extend roughly 150 miles into Mexico and the coastal plain extends over 400 miles into Mexico. Areas 34g, h, and i are largely grassland (but not exclusively). Areas 34a, b, c, d, e, and f have some grasslands scattered in them but, the ecology and vegetation zones in those areas are much more diverse and complex. The image from Louisiana is of Coastal Plain wetlands, not grasslands, and the Mexican images have been deleted. Compare the US Geological Survey map with Texas Parks and Wildlife (reference #5), particularly in the south. WiLaFa (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My recent edits are attempting to fix issues that you are bringing up in this Talk page, as best as I can understand them. For example, you are bringing up the issue of geographical imbalance. My last edits

• Used one of your photographs of a hawk in Mexico, rather than a different bird in Texas
• Marked the EPA Level IV material as neglecting Mexico.

I don't think your argument that the gallery has been there for years means that it shouldn't be edited is consistent with the way Wikipedia works, see WP:IMPERFECT and WP:BOLD.

I think the topic of this article is the ecoregion as now defined by OneEarth (which substantially overlaps the one defined by the CEC) We had issues before where authoritative sources (like CEC or OneEarth) disagree on how to draw the ecoregion boundaries. There is no "right" answer -- these are judgement calls. I would suggest that the article should describe the conflict between how the State of Texas and how OneEarth/EPA/CEC define it.

You are certainly welcome to continue to edit the article to make it better! Take your time. We are both here to build an encyclopedia. — hike395 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References