On 2/18/13, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > Thoughts? Comments? Am I on the fringe? Are guidelines like this still > subject to debate and change?
It's a tricky one. I favour more image use, not less, but then I work with images a lot (outside Wikipedia), so I'm kind of biased there. I do think that galleries that are large and purely illustrative are not really suitable for Wikipedia. Commons *categories* are not the equivalent of Wikipedia galleries, but you can create *pages* on Commons that you can arrange into galleries and divide into sections and annotate as needed. I do think that a section or article paragraph on (say) waterfalls in a National Park known for having many waterfalls could have a limited gallery of a few waterfalls, but something showing *all* of them would either have to be part of a standalone article, or a wikibook on the topic, or a Commons page, and you should be able to link all three directly from the article section, rather than hiding the link away down the bottom of the article. It is mainly a question of layout and placement and context, and can sometimes require creative thinking. The key is always to make the reader *aware* that image-rich resources are available, but not to shove the images in their faces. Give the reader options, but don't force-feed them. It is also a progression from summaries to the more detailed. If you are at the overview level, don't overwhelm things with images. But make sure that the reader can, if they want, easily drill down to the more detailed levels where more pictures are used (even if those levels are on other sites). Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
